National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 46, 16126-16135 [E9-7825]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16126
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
COD receipt and the Express Mail
receipt or the Registered Mail receipt.
Upon written request by the USPS, the
customer must submit proof of damage
(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing
contents, in person to a local Post Office
for inspection, retention, and
disposition in accordance with the
claims decision.
1.6.2
Claims Filed Online
Customers may file a claim online for
insured mail and Express Mail at
https://www.usps.com/insuranceclaims/
online.htm. Evidence of value is
required and may be submitted as an
uploaded file or sent via First-Class Mail
to Domestic Claims, Accounting
Services (see 608.8). Evidence of
insurance must be retained by the
customer until the claim is resolved.
Upon written request by the USPS, the
customer must submit proof of damage
(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing
contents, in person to a local Post Office
for inspection, retention, and
disposition in accordance with the
claims decision. COD and Registered
Mail claims cannot be filed online.
1.6.3
Claims Filed at the Post Office
A customer may file PS Form 1000 at
a local Post Office, which will then
forward the form to Accounting Services
in St. Louis. Customers may print PS
Form 1000 from https://www.usps.com/
insuranceclaims. Evidence of value is
required and must accompany the PS
Form 1000. Evidence of insurance must
be retained by the customer until the
claim is resolved. For Express Mail COD
and Registered Mail COD claims, the
customer must provide both the original
COD receipt and the Express Mail
receipt or the Registered Mail receipt.
Upon written request by the USPS, the
customer must submit proof of damage
(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing
contents, in person to a local Post Office
for inspection, retention, and
disposition in accordance with the
claims decision.
*
*
*
*
*
Providing Proof of Loss or Damage
2.1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
2.0
Missing Contents
[Revise the first sentence of 2.1 to
read as follows:]
If a claim is filed because some or all
of the contents are missing, the
addressee must retain the mailing
container, including wrapping,
packaging, and any contents that were
received, and must, upon written
request by the USPS, make them
available to the local Post Office for
inspection, retention, and disposition in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
accordance with the claims
decision. * * *
2.2 Proof of Damage
[Revise the first and second sentences
of 2.2 to read as follows:]
If the addressee files the claim, the
addressee must retain the damaged
article and mailing container, including
wrapping, packaging, and contents, and
must, upon written request by the
USPS, make them available for
inspection. If the mailer files the claim,
Accounting Services in St. Louis may
notify the addressee by letter to present
the damaged article and mailing
container, including any wrapping,
packaging, and any other contents
received, to a local Post Office for
inspection, retention, and disposition in
accordance with the claims
decision. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
3.0 Providing Evidence of Insurance
and Value
3.1 Evidence of Insurance
[Revise introductory paragraph and
item 3.1a to read as follows:]
For a claim involving insured mail,
Registered Mail, COD, or Express Mail,
the customer must retain evidence
showing that the particular service was
purchased until the claim is resolved.
Examples of acceptable evidence of
insurance are:
a. The original mailing receipt issued
at the time of mailing (retail insured
mail, Registered Mail, and COD receipts
must contain a USPS postmark). Except
for Registered Mail and COD claims, a
photocopy of the original mailing
receipt is acceptable. If the original
mailing receipt, or a photocopy of such
receipt, is not available, the original
USPS sales receipt listing the mailing
receipt number and insurance amount is
acceptable. Customers filing online
claims may scan the receipt and submit
as an uploaded file.
*
*
*
*
*
[Delete item 3.1d, and redesignate
current items 3.1e and 3.1f as 3.1d and
3.1e.]
*
*
*
*
*
3.2 Evidence of Value
[Revise introductory paragraph of 3.2
to add online option as follows:]
The customer (either the mailer or the
addressee) must submit acceptable
evidence to establish the cost or value
of the article at the time it was mailed.
For claims submitted online, the
evidence may be scanned and uploaded
or sent via First-Class Mail to Domestic
Claims, Accounting Services (see
608.8.0). Other evidence may be
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
requested to help determine an accurate
value. Examples of acceptable evidence
are:
*
*
*
*
*
6.0
Adjudication of Claims
6.1
Initial Adjudication of Claims
[Revise 6.1 to read as follows:]
Accounting Services in St. Louis
adjudicates and determines whether to
uphold a claim in full, uphold a claim
in part, or deny a claim in full. Domestic
insurance claims may be filed online
through https://www.usps.com/
insuranceclaims/online.htm, via mail to
Domestic Claims Accounting Services
(see 608.8), or by filing it at a local Post
Office. Claims for COD and Registered
Mail cannot be filed online.
6.2
Appealing a Claim Decision
[Revise 6.2 to read as follows:]
A customer may appeal a claim
decision by filing a written appeal to
Domestic Claims Appeals, Accounting
Services (see 608.8) within 60 days of
the date of the original decision. A
customer may also appeal a claim
decision online through https://
www.usps.com/insuranceclaims/
online.htm if the original claim was
filed online.
6.3
Final USPS Decision of Claims
[Revise text of 6.3 by adding a new
last sentence as follows:]
* * * The customer may file the
additional appeal online if the original
appeal was filed online.
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an appropriate
amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
these changes.
Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E9–8038 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0575, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2008–0576, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–
0577, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2008–0580, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2008–0581, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0583, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2008–0083; FRL–8790–1]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No.
46
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
ACTION:
Final rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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 nine sites
to the NPL, eight to the General
Superfund Section and one to the
Federal Facilities Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
for this amendment to the NCP is May
11, 2009.
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,
jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and
Remedy Decisions 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–
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)?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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. Site Name Change
C. 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
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to
This Final Rule?
K. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office?
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final
Rule Change?
3. What Could Cause a Change in the
Effective Date of This Rule?
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16127
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 pollutant 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. Section 105(a)(8)(B)
defines the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’
and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
16128
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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 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 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
• 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 made available for
productive use.
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 upto-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) 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/.
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 https://
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
Raleigh Street Dump ........................................................................................
Arkla Terra Property .........................................................................................
U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ...............................................................
Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water ..................................................................
Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume .....................................................
New Carlisle Landfill .........................................................................................
BoRit Asbestos .................................................................................................
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ...........................................................................
Attebury Grain Storage Facility ........................................................................
Tampa, FL .................
Thonotosassa, FL .....
East Chicago, IN .......
Frederick, MD ............
Dayton, OH ...............
New Carlisle, OH .......
Ambler, PA ................
McCormick, SC .........
Happy, TX .................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16129
FDMS docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0575.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0576.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0577.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0580.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0581.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0583.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0083.
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
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
16130
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566–
0276.
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 SMR–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, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665–
7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO,
NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street,
Mailcode SUPRERNB, 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.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV,
AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–9–1,
San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972–
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL–112, 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
nine sites to the NPL, eight to the
General Superfund Section and one to
the Federal Facilities Section:
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
City/county
FL ......................
FL ......................
IN ......................
OH ....................
OH ....................
PA .....................
SC .....................
TX .....................
Raleigh Street Dump ................................................................................................................................
Arkla Terra Property .................................................................................................................................
U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc .......................................................................................................
Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume ..............................................................................................
New Carlisle Landfill .................................................................................................................................
BoRit Asbestos .........................................................................................................................................
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ....................................................................................................................
Attebury Grain Storage Facility ................................................................................................................
Tampa.
Thonotosassa.
East Chicago.
Dayton.
New Carlisle.
Ambler.
McCormick.
Happy.
TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION
State
Site name
MD ....................
Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water ...........................................................................................................
B. Site Name Change
The BoRit Asbestos site in Ambler,
Pennsylvania, was proposed to the NPL
under a different name. The former
name was Borit Asbestos Tailings Pile
(see Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393,
September 3, 2008). EPA believes the
new name, BoRit Asbestos, more
accurately identifies the site.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
C. 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.
Nine sites are being finalized in this
rule. EPA received adverse comments
related to the HRS scoring of four sites:
Attebury Grain Storage Facility (Happy,
TX); Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water
(Frederick, MD); Behr Dayton Thermal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
City/county
System VOC Plume (Dayton, OH); and
U. S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc.
(East Chicago, IN). The comments,
EPA’s responses to the comments, and
the impacts, if any, on the HRS scores,
are presented in support documents
responding to the comments for each of
the four sites. These support documents
are being placed in the Headquarters
and regional dockets concurrent with
the publication of this rule.
EPA received one non-HRS comment,
after the close of the comment period,
for all sites proposed in March 2008,
which included the Attebury Grain
Storage Facility. (All other sites added
to the NPL in this rule were proposed
for inclusion in September 2008.) The
commenter stated that EPA’s process for
adding sites to the NPL does not meet
notice-and-comment rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Frederick.
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), and urged that
EPA provide additional information
beyond that which it already does, in
order to facilitate a dialogue with
interested parties on why the site was
chosen for addition to the NPL. In
response, EPA’s process for adding sites
to the NPL complies with the APA. EPA
agrees generally with the commenter
that a dialogue with interested parties is
useful to inform listing decisions, but
believes there are many opportunities
for such a dialogue throughout the
Superfund cleanup process before
listing a site on the NPL.
Typically for a prospective site (and
in accordance with the long-standing
procedures in the NCP), EPA conducts
a preliminary assessment (PA), and
documents its findings in a public
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
report. Based on the PA, EPA may then
conduct a more comprehensive site
inspection (SI), the results of which are
also documented in a public report. An
SI typically involves gathering sampling
data (by conducting sampling at or near
the site) and gathering additional
assessment data by contacting the state
and other parties, such as landowners at
or near the site. These early efforts put
interested parties on notice of EPA’s
interest in the site. When EPA proposes
to list a site, EPA provides its detailed
rationale in documents publicly
available in Dockets located at EPA
Headquarters in Washington DC, in the
Regional offices, and by electronic
access at https://www.regulations.gov. If
the site is affected by any particular
CERCLA statutory requirements or EPA
listing policies, site-specific discussions
of those statutory requirements or listing
policies are included as part of the
docket materials for public review and
comment. Commenters have the
opportunity to raise any comments they
may have on the proposed action,
including raising any policy concerns
regarding the propriety of using the
Superfund process to address the site.
Indeed, EPA often gets comments of this
nature on its proposed sites, and
responds to those comments before it
makes any final decision to list a site on
the NPL.
For the five remaining sites being
finalized in this rule, EPA received no
comments on four of those sites: Raleigh
Street Dump (Tampa, FL); Arkla Terra
Property (Thonotosassa, FL); New
Carlisle Landfill (New Carlisle, OH); and
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields
(McCormick, SC). Over 40 comments
were received for the BoRit Asbestos
site. All of them were supportive of
listing and none presented any concerns
with the HRS scoring. They all urged
EPA to list the site based on human
health, environmental and
redevelopment needs. In response, EPA
is adding the site to the NPL. Listing
makes a site eligible for remedial action
funding under CERCLA, and EPA will
examine the site to determine what
response, if any, is appropriate. Actual
funding may not be necessarily
undertaken in the precise order of HRS
scores, however, and upon more
detailed investigation may not be
necessary in some cases. EPA will
determine the need for using Superfund
monies for remedial activities on a siteby-site basis, taking into account the
NPL ranking, State priorities, further
site investigation, other response
alternatives, and other factors as
appropriate.
All comments that were received by
EPA are contained in the Headquarters
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
Docket and are also listed in EPA’s
electronic public Docket and comment
system at https://www.regulations.gov.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16131
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.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
16132
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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
to have meaningful and timely input in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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?
This final 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 the private sector in
any one year. 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 placing a site
on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of section
202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As is
mentioned above, site listing does not
impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Listing a site on the NPL does not
impose any costs on a tribe or require
a tribe to take remedial action. 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
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (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.
Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy impacts because proposing a site
to the NPL does not require an entity to
conduct any action that would require
energy use, let alone that which would
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
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),
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.
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
No. This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
1. What is Executive Order 12898?
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to
This Rule?
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does
not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not
impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this
rule will neither increase nor decrease
environmental protection.
K. Congressional Review Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
2. Does the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act Apply
to This Final Rule?
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to
Congress and the Government
Accountability 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16133
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.
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
16134
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
(D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has
transmitted a copy of this regulation to
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the
CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the
effective date of this regulation into
question, EPA will publish a document
of clarification in the Federal Register.
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: April 1, 2009.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
PART 300—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
2. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to
part 300 are amended by adding the
following sites in alphabetical order to
read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
■
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
City/county
Notes a
*
FL .....................
*
*
*
*
*
Arkla Terra Property ..................................................................................................................... Thonotosassa.
*
*
FL .....................
*
*
*
*
*
Raleigh Street Dump .................................................................................................................... Tampa.
*
*
IN ......................
*
*
*
*
*
U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ........................................................................................... East Chicago.
*
*
OH ....................
*
*
*
*
*
Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume ................................................................................. Daytona.
*
*
OH ....................
*
*
*
*
*
New Carlisle Landfill .................................................................................................................... New Carlisle.
*
*
PA .....................
*
*
*
*
*
BoRit Asbetos .............................................................................................................................. Ambler.
*
*
SC ....................
*
*
*
*
*
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ....................................................................................................... McCormick.
*
*
TX .....................
*
*
*
*
*
Attebury Grain Storage Facility .................................................................................................... Happy.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION
State
Site name
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
*
MD ....................
*
City/county
*
*
*
*
*
Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water .............................................................................................. Frederick.
*
*
*
*
*
aA
= 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).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
Notes a
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
DC 20590–0001, telephone (202) 366–
8553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*
[FR Doc. E9–7825 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 176, 178, and
180
[Docket No. PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM–
218E)]
RIN 2137–AE23
Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous
Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle and Cylinder
Issues; Petitions for Rulemaking
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the
Hazardous Materials Regulations to
revise certain requirements applicable
to the manufacture, maintenance, and
use of DOT and MC specification cargo
tank motor vehicles, DOT specification
cylinders and UN pressure receptacles.
The revisions are based on petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the regulated
community and are intended to enhance
the safe transportation of hazardous
materials in commerce, clarify
regulatory requirements, and reduce
operating burdens on cargo tank and
cylinder manufacturers, requalifiers,
carriers, shippers, and users. The most
significant amendment adopted in this
final rule addresses a safety issue
identified by the National
Transportation Safety Board concerning
the transportation of compressed gases
in cylinders mounted on motor vehicles
or in frames, commonly referred to as
tube trailers.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective May 11, 2009.
Voluntary Compliance Date:
Voluntary compliance with all these
amendments, including those with
delayed mandatory compliance, is
authorized as of April 9, 2009.
Incorporation by Reference Date: The
incorporation by reference of
publications listed in this final rule has
been approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of May 11, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hattie L. Mitchell, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:45 Apr 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
I. Background
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) requires Federal agencies to give
interested persons the right to petition
for the issuance, amendment, or repeal
of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA’s
rulemaking procedure regulations, at 49
CFR 106.95, provide for persons to ask
PHMSA to add, amend or delete a
regulation by filing a petition for
rulemaking containing adequate support
for the requested action. In this final
rule, PHMSA (also ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’) is
amending the HMR based on petitions
for rulemaking submitted by cargo tank
and cylinder manufacturers,
requalifiers, shippers, and carriers. We
are also incorporating revisions to
address requests for clarification of the
regulations. These revisions are
intended to enhance the safe
transportation of hazardous materials in
cargo tank motor vehicles and cylinders,
clarify regulatory requirements, and
reduce operating burdens on carriers,
shippers, and users.
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
We published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) under this docket
on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18446). The
comment period for the NPRM closed
on June 11, 2007. PHMSA received 21
comments from the following
individuals, companies, and
organizations:
(1) Matheson Tri Gas (Matheson;
PHMSA–2006–25910–2 and 4);
(2) Clifford L. Bartley (Bartley;
PHMSA–2006–25910–3);
(3) A&S Enterprises (A&S; PHMSA–
2006–25910–4);
(4) Taylor-Wharton Huntsville
(Taylor-Wharton; PHMSA–2006–25910–
5);
(5) Catalina Cylinders (Catalina;
PHMSA–2006–25910–7);
(6) Norco Welding-Safety Medical
Gases & Supplies (Norco; PHMSA–
2006–25910–8);
(7) Richard O. Harder (Harder;
PHMSA–2006–25910–9);
(8) Scott Specialty Gases (Scott
Specialty; PHMSA–2006–25910–10);
(9) Chemetall Foote Corp. (Chemetall;
PHMSA–2006–25910–11);
(10) National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB; PHMSA–2006–25910–
13);
(11) Certified Training Co. (CTC;
PHMSA–2006–25910–14);
(12) Luxfer Gas Cylinders (Luxfer;
PHMSA–2006–25910–15);
(13) Sherwood Harsco Corp.
(Sherwood; PHMSA–2006–25910–16);
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16135
(14) Air Products and Chemicals Inc.
(Air Products; PHMSA–2006–25910–
17);
(15) National Propane Gas Assoc.
(NPGA; PHMSA–2006–25910–18);
(16) FMC Lithium (FMC Lithium;
PHMSA–2006–25910–19);
(17) Barlen & Assoc. Inc. (Barlen;
PHMSA–2006–25910–20);
(18) The Linde Group (Linde;
PHMSA–2006–25910–21);
(19) Roberts Oxygen Company, Inc.
(Roberts; PHMSA–2006–25910–22);
(20) Steigerwalt (Steigerwalt;
PHMSA–2006–25910–23); and
(21) Compressed Gas Association
(CGA; PHMSA–2006–25910–24).
Commenters are generally supportive of
the proposals in the NPRM. All of the
proposals, with corresponding
comments, are discussed in more detail
below.
III. Proposals Not Adopted
We are not adopting two of the
amendments proposed in the NPRM
relating to the incorporation by
reference of two CGA publications. In
the NPRM, we proposed the
incorporation of CGA V–9 titled
‘‘Standard for Compressed Gas Cylinder
Valves, 2005 Fifth Edition’’ which was
requested by CGA (P–1422). This
amendment contained in proposed
§§ 173.40(c) and 173.301(a)(11) would
have required each valve on a cylinder
to conform to CGA V–9 unless
otherwise excepted. We received 15
comments from Air Products, Matheson,
Taylor-Wharton, Catalina, Norco,
Harder, Scott Specialty, Chemetall,
Luxfer, Sherwood, NPGA, FMC
Lithium, Barlen, Linde, and Roberts.
With the exception of Luxfer, these
commenters request that we delay the
incorporation by reference of CGA V–9
to allow sufficient time for CGA to
resolve certain concerns that would
cause confusion to both industry and
enforcement officials. Luxfer suggests
that we adopt CGA V–9 and revise the
HMR to establish in-process approvals,
controls, and inspections for the
manufacture of V–9 valves. Because
CGA is in the process of revising the
CGA V–9 publication, we agree with the
commenters who suggest that the
publication should not be incorporated
into the HMR at this time.
We also proposed the incorporation of
CGA C–1 titled ‘‘Methods for
Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas
Cylinders,’’ that was requested by CGA
(P–1485). This amendment contained in
proposed § 180.205(g) would have
required the requalification of cylinders
using a pressure test conducted in
accordance with CGA C–1. Air Products
supports referencing CGA C–1. Two
E:\FR\FM\09APR1.SGM
09APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 67 (Thursday, April 9, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16126-16135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7825]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0575, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0576, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-
0577, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0585, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0580, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2008-0581, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0582, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0583, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2008-0083; FRL-8790-1]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 46
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
[[Page 16127]]
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 nine sites to the NPL, eight to the General
Superfund Section and one to the Federal Facilities Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is May 11, 2009.
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,
jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions 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) 424-9346 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. Site Name Change
C. 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
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Final Rule?
K. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the Government
Accountability 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 pollutant
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. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and
[[Page 16128]]
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 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 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.
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 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
[[Page 16129]]
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 made available for productive use.
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) 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/.
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
https://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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh Street Dump........... Tampa, FL.................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0575.
Arkla Terra Property.......... Thonotosassa, FL........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0576.
U.S. Smelter and Lead East Chicago, IN........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0577.
Refinery, Inc.
Fort Detrick Area B Ground Frederick, MD.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0585.
Water.
Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Dayton, OH................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0580.
Plume.
New Carlisle Landfill......... New Carlisle, OH........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0581.
BoRit Asbestos................ Ambler, PA................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0582.
Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields. McCormick, SC.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0583.
Attebury Grain Storage Happy, TX.................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0083.
Facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 16130]]
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 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
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 SMR-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,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, 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.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, 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 nine sites to the NPL, eight to
the General Superfund Section and one to the Federal Facilities
Section:
Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL..................... Raleigh Street Tampa.
Dump.
FL..................... Arkla Terra Thonotosassa.
Property.
IN..................... U.S. Smelter and East Chicago.
Lead Refinery,
Inc.
OH..................... Behr Dayton Dayton.
Thermal System
VOC Plume.
OH..................... New Carlisle New Carlisle.
Landfill.
PA..................... BoRit Asbestos... Ambler.
SC..................... Barite Hill/ McCormick.
Nevada
Goldfields.
TX..................... Attebury Grain Happy.
Storage Facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD..................... Fort Detrick Area Frederick.
B Ground Water.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Site Name Change
The BoRit Asbestos site in Ambler, Pennsylvania, was proposed to
the NPL under a different name. The former name was Borit Asbestos
Tailings Pile (see Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393, September 3, 2008).
EPA believes the new name, BoRit Asbestos, more accurately identifies
the site.
C. 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.
Nine sites are being finalized in this rule. EPA received adverse
comments related to the HRS scoring of four sites: Attebury Grain
Storage Facility (Happy, TX); Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water
(Frederick, MD); Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume (Dayton, OH); and
U. S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. (East Chicago, IN). The comments,
EPA's responses to the comments, and the impacts, if any, on the HRS
scores, are presented in support documents responding to the comments
for each of the four sites. These support documents are being placed in
the Headquarters and regional dockets concurrent with the publication
of this rule.
EPA received one non-HRS comment, after the close of the comment
period, for all sites proposed in March 2008, which included the
Attebury Grain Storage Facility. (All other sites added to the NPL in
this rule were proposed for inclusion in September 2008.) The commenter
stated that EPA's process for adding sites to the NPL does not meet
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), and urged that EPA provide additional information
beyond that which it already does, in order to facilitate a dialogue
with interested parties on why the site was chosen for addition to the
NPL. In response, EPA's process for adding sites to the NPL complies
with the APA. EPA agrees generally with the commenter that a dialogue
with interested parties is useful to inform listing decisions, but
believes there are many opportunities for such a dialogue throughout
the Superfund cleanup process before listing a site on the NPL.
Typically for a prospective site (and in accordance with the long-
standing procedures in the NCP), EPA conducts a preliminary assessment
(PA), and documents its findings in a public
[[Page 16131]]
report. Based on the PA, EPA may then conduct a more comprehensive site
inspection (SI), the results of which are also documented in a public
report. An SI typically involves gathering sampling data (by conducting
sampling at or near the site) and gathering additional assessment data
by contacting the state and other parties, such as landowners at or
near the site. These early efforts put interested parties on notice of
EPA's interest in the site. When EPA proposes to list a site, EPA
provides its detailed rationale in documents publicly available in
Dockets located at EPA Headquarters in Washington DC, in the Regional
offices, and by electronic access at https://www.regulations.gov. If the
site is affected by any particular CERCLA statutory requirements or EPA
listing policies, site-specific discussions of those statutory
requirements or listing policies are included as part of the docket
materials for public review and comment. Commenters have the
opportunity to raise any comments they may have on the proposed action,
including raising any policy concerns regarding the propriety of using
the Superfund process to address the site. Indeed, EPA often gets
comments of this nature on its proposed sites, and responds to those
comments before it makes any final decision to list a site on the NPL.
For the five remaining sites being finalized in this rule, EPA
received no comments on four of those sites: Raleigh Street Dump
(Tampa, FL); Arkla Terra Property (Thonotosassa, FL); New Carlisle
Landfill (New Carlisle, OH); and Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields
(McCormick, SC). Over 40 comments were received for the BoRit Asbestos
site. All of them were supportive of listing and none presented any
concerns with the HRS scoring. They all urged EPA to list the site
based on human health, environmental and redevelopment needs. In
response, EPA is adding the site to the NPL. Listing makes a site
eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA, and EPA will examine
the site to determine what response, if any, is appropriate. Actual
funding may not be necessarily undertaken in the precise order of HRS
scores, however, and upon more detailed investigation may not be
necessary in some cases. EPA will determine the need for using
Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site basis,
taking into account the NPL ranking, State priorities, further site
investigation, other response alternatives, and other factors as
appropriate.
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 https://www.regulations.gov.
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.
[[Page 16132]]
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 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 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?
This final 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 the private sector in any one year.
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 placing a site on the NPL. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site listing does not impose any costs and would not require any
action of a small government.
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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Listing a site
on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to
take remedial action. 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
[[Page 16133]]
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 action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (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. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts because proposing
a site to the NPL does not require an entity to conduct any action that
would require energy use, let alone that which would significantly
affect energy supply, distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
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), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, 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.
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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
1. What is Executive Order 12898?
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Rule?
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.
K. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the Government
Accountability 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.
[[Page 16134]]
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 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
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: April 1, 2009.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting 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. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to part 300 are 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
FL............................ Arkla Terra Property..... Thonotosassa. ......................
* * * * * * *
FL............................ Raleigh Street Dump...... Tampa. ......................
* * * * * * *
IN............................ U.S. Smelter and Lead East Chicago. ......................
Refinery, Inc.
* * * * * * *
OH............................ Behr Dayton Thermal Daytona. ......................
System VOC Plume.
* * * * * * *
OH............................ New Carlisle Landfill.... New Carlisle. ......................
* * * * * * *
PA............................ BoRit Asbetos............ Ambler. ......................
* * * * * * *
SC............................ Barite Hill/Nevada McCormick. ......................
Goldfields.
* * * * * * *
TX............................ Attebury Grain Storage Happy. ......................
Facility.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
MD............................ Fort Detrick Area B Frederick. ......................
Ground Water.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
[[Page 16135]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-7825 Filed 4-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
