National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 47, 48412-48421 [E9-22934]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48412
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Commodity
Parts per
million
Soybean, hay ............................
Soybean, seed ..........................
Tomato ......................................
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
subgroup 7A, except soybean ......................................
Vegetable, legume, group 6 .....
8.0
0.20
0.10
15.0
0.30
(2) * * *
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
Commodity
Parts per
million
Asparagus .................................
Beet, sugar, molasses ..............
Beet, sugar, roots .....................
Beet, sugar, tops ......................
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ...............................
Cattle, fat ..................................
Cattle, kidney ............................
Cattle, liver ................................
Cattle, meat ..............................
Cattle, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Corn, field, grain .......................
Corn, field, forage .....................
Corn, field, stover .....................
Corn, pop, grain ........................
Corn, pop, stover ......................
Corn, sweet, forage ..................
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed ..............
Corn, sweet, stover ..................
Cotton, gin byproducts .............
Cotton, undelinted seed ...........
Egg ...........................................
Garlic, bulb ...............................
Grain, aspirated fractions .........
Goat, fat ....................................
Goat, kidney .............................
Goat, liver .................................
Goat, meat ................................
Goat, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Grass, forage ............................
Grass, hay ................................
Horse, fat ..................................
Horse, kidney ............................
Horse, liver ...............................
Horse, meat ..............................
Horse, meat byproducts, except
kidney and liver .....................
Leaf petioles, subgroup 4B ......
Milk ...........................................
Onion, bulb ...............................
Onion, green .............................
Peanut ......................................
Peanut, hay ..............................
Peanut, meal ............................
Poultry, fat ................................
Poultry, meat ............................
Poultry, meat byproducts ..........
Pumpkin ....................................
Safflower, seed .........................
Shallot, bulb ..............................
Sheep, fat .................................
Sheep, kidney ...........................
Sheep, liver ...............................
Sheep, meat .............................
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver .............
Sorghum, grain, forage .............
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
0.10
2.0
0.5
15.0
0.60
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.10
6.0
6.0
0.10
6.0
6.0
0.10
6.0
4.0
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.70
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
10.0
0.20
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.10
2.0
0.20
20.0
0.40
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.04
1.0
Jkt 217001
Parts per
million
Commodity
Sorghum, grain, grain ...............
Sorghum, grain, stover .............
Soybean, forage .......................
Soybean, hay ............................
Soybean, seed ..........................
Spinach .....................................
Squash, winter ..........................
Sunflower, seed ........................
Sunflower, meal ........................
Tomato, paste ...........................
Vegetable, foliage of legume,
except soybean, subgroup
7A ..........................................
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except tabasco pepper .............
Vegetable, legume, group 6 .....
Vegetable, root, except sugar
beet, subgroup 1B ................
Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C .........................
0.3
4.0
5.0
8.0
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.50
1.0
0.30
15.0
0.10
0.30
Parts per
million
1.0
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.50
0.10
0.80
0.80
Parts per
million
Commodity
Animal feed, nongrass, group
18 ..........................................
Barley, grain .............................
Barley, hay ................................
Barley, straw .............................
Buckwheat, grain ......................
Millet, forage .............................
Millet, grain ...............................
Millet, hay .................................
Millet, straw ...............................
Oat, forage ................................
Oat, grain ..................................
Oat, hay ....................................
Oat, straw .................................
Rice, grain ................................
Rye, forage ...............................
Rye, grain .................................
Frm 00040
*
*
*
*
*
4. Section 180.511 is amended by
removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and
adding the following commodity to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Guava .......................................
*
*
*
*
*
0.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
5. Section 180.572 is amended by
removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and
adding the following commodity to the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for
residues.
(a) General. * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
*
Guava .......................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.9
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–22919 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
(2) * * *
PO 00000
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.20
*
*
*
*
(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues.
(1) * * *
Animal feed, nongrass, group
18 ..........................................
Barley, grain .............................
Barley, hay ................................
Barley, straw .............................
Buckwheat, grain ......................
Millet, forage .............................
Millet, grain ...............................
Millet, hay .................................
Millet, straw ...............................
Oat, forage ................................
Oat, grain ..................................
Oat, hay ....................................
Oat, straw .................................
Rice, grain ................................
Rye, forage ...............................
Rye, grain .................................
Rye, straw .................................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
Rye, straw .................................
Wheat, forage ...........................
Wheat, grain .............................
Wheat, hay ...............................
Wheat, straw .............................
0.30
*
Commodity
Parts per
million
Commodity
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1.0
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2009–0071, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–
0074, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0075, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2009–0068, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2009–0069, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0579,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0072, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2009–0064, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–
0073, EPA–HQ–SFUND–1997–0009; FRL–
8961–3]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No.
47
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 11 sites
to the NPL, all to the General Superfund
Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
for this amendment to the NCP is
October 23, 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,
e-mail: 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:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
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?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
1. What Is Executive Order 13132?
2. Is Executive Order 13132 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 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48413
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\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
48414
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD 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.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 00042
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\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 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/cleanup/
ccl.htm.
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
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/county, state
B.F. Goodrich ...............................................................
Lane Street Ground Water Contamination ..................
Southwest Jefferson County Mining ............................
Flat Creek IMM ............................................................
Ore Knob Mine .............................................................
GMH Electronics ..........................................................
Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. .......................................
Little Scioto River .........................................................
Salford Quarry ..............................................................
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. ......................................
Amcast Industrial Corporation .....................................
Rialto, CA ....................................................................
Elkhart, IN ...................................................................
Jefferson County, MO .................................................
Superior, MT ...............................................................
Ashe County, NC ........................................................
Roxboro, NC ...............................................................
Milford, NJ ...................................................................
Marion County, OH .....................................................
Lower Salford Township, PA ......................................
Utuado, PR ..................................................................
Cedarburg, WI .............................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48415
FDMS Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0071
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0074
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0075
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0068
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0069
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0579
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0072
EPA–HQ–SFUND–1997–0009
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0064
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0073
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
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
48416
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Regional Dockets. For sites that received
comments during the comment period,
the Regional Docket also contains a
Support Document that includes EPA’s
responses to comments.
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, after the publication
of this rule. The hours of operation for
the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Please contact the Regional Dockets for
hours.
Following is the contact information
for the EPA Headquarters: Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW.; 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., Mailcode 9T25,
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; 206/463–1349.
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 11
sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section. The sites are
presented in the table below:
State
Site name
CA ..............................
IN ................................
MO .............................
MT ..............................
NC ..............................
NC ..............................
NJ ...............................
OH ..............................
PA ..............................
PR ..............................
WI ...............................
B.F. Goodrich .........................................................................................................................
Lane Street Ground Water Contamination ............................................................................
Southwest Jefferson County Mining ......................................................................................
Flat Creek IMM ......................................................................................................................
Ore Knob Mine .......................................................................................................................
GMH Electronics ....................................................................................................................
Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. ..................................................................................................
Little Scioto River ...................................................................................................................
Salford Quarry ........................................................................................................................
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. ................................................................................................
Amcast Industrial Corporation ................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
B. Site Name Change
The Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. site
in Milford, New Jersey, was proposed to
the NPL under a different name. The
former name was Curtis Papers, Inc. (see
Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393,
September 3, 2008). EPA believes the
new name, Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc.,
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.
Eleven sites are being finalized in this
rule. EPA received adverse comments
related to the HRS scoring of two sites:
B.F Goodrich and Curtis Specialty
Papers, Inc. The comments, EPA’s
responses to the comments, and the
impacts, if any, on the HRS scores, are
presented in support documents
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
City/county
responding to the comments for each of
the two sites. These support documents
are being placed in the Headquarters
and regional dockets concurrently with
the publication of this rule.
EPA received non-HRS comments for
three sites. For two of these sites,
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. and
Amcast Industrial Corporation,
commenters requested extensions of the
comment period in order to have more
review time and discuss voluntary
cleanup options (Papelera
Puertorriquena, Inc.) and in order to
complete due diligence and purchase
negotiations (Amcast Industrial
Corporation). EPA denied both
extension requests. There were no errors
in the materials available during the
comment period in either docket, and
therefore, the commenters had adequate
opportunity to comment upon the
proposed listing and the underlying
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rialto.
Elkhart.
Jefferson County.
Superior.
Ashe County.
Roxboro.
Milford.
Marion County.
Lower Salford Township.
Utuado.
Cedarburg.
record for the listings. Moreover, EPA is
finalizing the sites because EPA, Puerto
Rico and Wisconsin believe listing is the
most effective way of obtaining site
cleanup. This action should not
interfere with a voluntary cleanup at
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. EPA notes
that potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) may undertake the RI/FS and/or
remedial design/remedial action stages
under supervision and pursuant to
appropriate agreements with
governmental authorities. PRPs may
also take part in the remedy selection
process through public participation
opportunities. Regarding Amcast
Industrial Corporation, where a
potential developer requested the
extension in order to pursue EPA
brownfields grant funding, this
arrangement would have been
precluded once the site was proposed;
sites proposed to the NPL are not
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
eligible to be considered for brownfields
funding. The mayor of Cedarburg
commented in support of listing the
Amcast site, which EPA is doing
through this final rule.
In the case of the third site, Flat Creek
IMM, four commenters supported listing
but urged EPA to use local workers and
implement an Historically
Underutilized Business (HUB) zone set
aside. EPA anticipates using the local
work force at later stages of the
Superfund process, but cannot create a
HUB zone set aside because this is the
responsibility of the Small Business
Administration. Another commenter
raised several different issues regarding
the site. The commenter first provided
dates and other site history details that
were sometimes inconsistent with the
documentation in the HRS record,
which EPA based on materials from the
Montana Department of State Lands.
Regardless of whether the commenter or
the State documents are correct, the
differences have no impact on the site
score since the information presented in
the Site History and Description
sections of the HRS documentation
record was not used to compute the
HRS score. The commenter claimed
mining activities did not contaminate
the ground water or surface drinking
water. This has no bearing on the score
because neither the ground water
pathway nor the surface drinking water
pathway was used in the scoring; the
site was scored on the soil exposure and
surface water environmental and human
food chain pathways. The commenter
next claimed the levels of lead in two
dumptrucks worth of the tailings were
less than the levels in the two batteries
of the commenter’s pickup. In response,
although lead was identified as being at
the site, it was not used to calculate the
site score, and removing it from the
record would have no impact on the
score. The commenter claimed fish still
inhabit Flat Creek. This is consistent
with the HRS record, which documents
a fishery to be present within Flat Creek.
The commenter also stated that most
people have no contact with the tailings
located along Flat Creek. Even if true,
this comment does not affect the HRS
site score because the soil exposure
pathway scoring for the site considered
locations other than the tailings along
Flat Creek in computing the HRS score.
In conclusion, these comments have no
impact on the HRS score or listing
decision for the Flat Creek IMM site.
For the six remaining sites being
finalized in this rule, EPA received no
comments during the comment period:
Lane Street Ground Water
Contamination; Southwest Jefferson
County Mining; Ore Knob Mine; GMH
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
48417
Electronics; Little Scioto River; and
Salford Quarry.
All comments that were received by
EPA are contained in the Headquarters
Docket and are also listed in EPA’s
electronic public Docket and comment
system at www.regulations.gov.
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.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
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
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
48418
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This rule listing sites on the NPL does
not impose any obligations on any
group, including small entities. This
rule also does not establish standards or
requirements that any small entity must
meet, and imposes no direct costs on
any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response
costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that
entity is liable under CERCLA 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 DSKH9S0YB1PROD 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
1. What Is Executive Order 13132
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.’’
2. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable
to This Final Rule?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it does
not contain any requirements applicable
to States or other levels of government.
Thus, the requirements of the Executive
Order do not apply to this final rule.
EPA believes, however, that this final
rule may be of significant interest to
State governments. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA therefore
consulted with State officials and/or
representatives of State governments
early in the process of developing the
rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development.
All sites included in this final rule were
referred to EPA by States for listing. For
all sites in this rule, EPA received letters
of support either from the Governor or
a State official who was delegated the
authority by the Governor to speak on
their behalf regarding NPL listing
decisions.
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,
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to
This Final Rule?
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined
by Executive Order 12866, and because
the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this section
present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order
13211?
This 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.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
48419
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
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. 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.
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final
Rule Change?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
48420
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: September 14, 2009.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
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.
of major rules after this report is
submitted.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the
Effective Date of This Rule?
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall
not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President
signs) a joint resolution of disapproval,
described under section 802.
Another statutory provision that may
affect this rule is CERCLA section 305,
which provides for a legislative veto of
regulations promulgated under
CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462
U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd.
of Regents of the University of
Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222
(DC Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has
transmitted a copy of this regulation to
40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
■
PART 300—[AMENDED]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
■
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
Notes a
City/county
*
CA ...............
*
*
*
B.F. Goodrich .................................................................. Rialto..
*
*
*
*
IN ................
*
*
*
Lane Street Ground Water Contamination ..................... Elkhart..
*
*
*
*
MO ..............
*
*
*
*
Southwest Jefferson County Mining ............................... Jefferson County..
*
*
*
MT ...............
*
*
*
Flat Creek IMM ............................................................... Superior..
*
*
*
*
NC ...............
*
*
*
Ore Knob Mine ................................................................ Ashe County..
*
*
*
*
NC ...............
*
*
*
GMH Electronics ............................................................. Roxboro..
*
*
*
*
NJ ................
*
*
*
Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc ............................................ Milford..
*
*
*
*
OH ...............
*
*
*
Little Scioto River ............................................................ Marion County..
*
*
*
*
PA ...............
*
*
*
*
Salford Quarry ................................................................. Lower Salford Township..
*
*
*
PR ...............
*
*
*
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc .......................................... Utuado..
*
*
*
*
WI ................
*
*
*
Amcast Industrial Corporation ......................................... Cedarburg.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
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
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–22934 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 52
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Solicitation Provisions and Contract
Clauses
CFR Correction
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99),
revised as of October 1, 2008, on page
123, in section 52.219–9, in the clause,
move paragraph (d)(2)(vi), which
precedes paragraph (d)(2)(v), to follow
paragraph (d)(2)(v); remove the second
paragraph (d)(2)(vi); and reinstate
paragraph (d)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
52.219–9
plan.
Small business subcontracting
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Total dollars planned to be
subcontracted to service-disabled
veteran-owned small business;
*
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XR63
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;
Closure
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
48 CFR Part 909
Acquisition Regulation; Contractor
Qualifications
CFR Correction
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Chapters 7 to 14, revised as
of October 1, 2008, on page 300,
reinstate section 909.405 to read as
follows:
909.405 Effect of listing. (DOE coverage—
paragraph (e), (f), (g) and (h))
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
[Docket No.0812171612–9134–02]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
(e) The Department of Energy may not
solicit offers from, award contracts to or
consent to subcontract with contractors
debarred, suspended or proposed for
debarment unless the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Procurement and
Assistance Management makes a written
determination justifying that there is a
compelling reason for such action in
accordance with FAR 9.405(a).
16:39 Sep 22, 2009
[61 FR 39857, July 31, 1996; 61 FR 41684,
Aug. 9, 1996]
[FR Doc. E9–23051 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am]
50 CFR Part 660
[FR Doc. E9–23053 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
(f) DOE may disapprove or not
consent to the selection (by a contractor)
of an individual to serve as a principal
investigator, as a project manager, in a
position of responsibility for the
administration of Federal funds, or in
another key personnel position, if the
individual is on the GSA List.
(g) DOE shall not conduct business
with an agent or representative of a
contractor if the agent’s or
representative’s name appears on the
GSA List.
(h) DOE shall review the GSA List
before conducting a preaward survey or
soliciting proposals, awarding contracts,
renewing or otherwise extending the
duration of existing contracts, or
approving or consenting to the award,
extension, or renewal of subcontracts.
Jkt 217001
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts
of Washington, Oregon and California.
This action is necessary because the
directed harvest allocation total for the
third seasonal period (September 15–
December 31) is projected to be reached
by the effective date of the rule. From
the effective date of this rule until
December 31, 2009, Pacific sardine can
only be harvested as part of the live bait
fishery or incidental to other fisheries;
the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine
is limited to 20–percent by weight of all
fish per trip. Fishing vessels must be at
shore and in the process of offloading at
12:01 am Pacific Daylight Time on date
of closure.
DATES: Effective 12:01 am Pacific
Daylight Time (PDT) September 23,
2009, through December 31, 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48421
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region,
NMFS, (562) 980–4034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document announces that based on the
best available information recently
obtained from the fishery and
information on past effort, the directed
fishing harvest allocation for the third
allocation period (September 15 December 31) will be reached and
therefore directed fishing for Pacific
sardine is being closed until December
31, 2009. Fishing vessels must be at
shore and in the process of offloading at
the time of closure. From 12:01 am on
the date of closure until December 31,
2009, Pacific sardine may be harvested
only incidental to other fisheries, with
the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine
limited to 20–percent by weight of all
fish caught during a trip.
NMFS manages the Pacific sardine
fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast
(California, Oregon, and Washington) in
accordance with the Coastal Pelagic
Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan
(FMP). Annual specifications published
in the Federal Register establish the
harvest guideline (HG) and allowable
harvest levels for each Pacific sardine
fishing season (January 1 - December
31). If during any of the seasonal
allocation periods the applicable
adjusted directed harvest allocation is
projected to be taken, only incidental
harvest is allowed and, for the
remainder of the period, any incidental
Pacific sardine landings will be counted
against that period’s incidental set
aside. In the event that an incidental setaside is projected to be attained, all
fisheries will be closed to the retention
of Pacific sardine for the remainder of
the period via appropriate rulemaking.
Under 50 CFR 660.509 if the total HG
or these apportionment levels for Pacific
sardine are reached at any time, NMFS
is required to close the Pacific sardine
fishery via appropriate rulemaking and
it is to remain closed until it re-opens
either per the allocation scheme or the
beginning of the next fishing season. In
accordance with § 660.509 the Regional
Administrator shall publish a notice in
the Federal Register announcing the
date of the closure of the directed
fishery for Pacific sardine.
The above in-season harvest
restrictions are not intended to affect the
prosecution the live bait portion of the
Pacific sardine fishery.
Classification
This action is required by 50 CFR
660.509 and is exempt from Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48412-48421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0071, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-
0074, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0075, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0068, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0069, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0579, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0072, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0064, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0073, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1997-0009; FRL-
8961-3]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 47
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
[[Page 48413]]
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 11 sites to the
NPL, all to the General Superfund Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is October 23, 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, e-
mail: 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
1. What Is Executive Order 13132?
2. Is Executive Order 13132 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 48414]]
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.
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 48415]]
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/cleanup/ccl.htm.
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
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/county, state FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.F. Goodrich........................ Rialto, CA............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574
Lane Street Ground Water Elkhart, IN............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0071
Contamination.
Southwest Jefferson County Mining.... Jefferson County, MO... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0074
Flat Creek IMM....................... Superior, MT........... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0075
Ore Knob Mine........................ Ashe County, NC........ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0068
GMH Electronics...................... Roxboro, NC............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0069
Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc......... Milford, NJ............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0579
Little Scioto River.................. Marion County, OH...... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0072
Salford Quarry....................... Lower Salford Township, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1997-0009
PA.
Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc......... Utuado, PR............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0064
Amcast Industrial Corporation........ Cedarburg, WI.......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 48416]]
Regional Dockets. For sites that received comments during the comment
period, the Regional Docket also contains a Support Document that
includes EPA's responses to comments.
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for
hours.
Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.; 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., Mailcode 9T25, 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; 206/463-1349.
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 11 sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section. The sites are presented in the table below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA................................... B.F. Goodrich................ Rialto.
IN................................... Lane Street Ground Water Elkhart.
Contamination.
MO................................... Southwest Jefferson County Jefferson County.
Mining.
MT................................... Flat Creek IMM............... Superior.
NC................................... Ore Knob Mine................ Ashe County.
NC................................... GMH Electronics.............. Roxboro.
NJ................................... Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. Milford.
OH................................... Little Scioto River.......... Marion County.
PA................................... Salford Quarry............... Lower Salford Township.
PR................................... Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. Utuado.
WI................................... Amcast Industrial Corporation Cedarburg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Site Name Change
The Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. site in Milford, New Jersey, was
proposed to the NPL under a different name. The former name was Curtis
Papers, Inc. (see Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393, September 3, 2008). EPA
believes the new name, Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc., 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.
Eleven sites are being finalized in this rule. EPA received adverse
comments related to the HRS scoring of two sites: B.F Goodrich and
Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. 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 two sites.
These support documents are being placed in the Headquarters and
regional dockets concurrently with the publication of this rule.
EPA received non-HRS comments for three sites. For two of these
sites, Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. and Amcast Industrial Corporation,
commenters requested extensions of the comment period in order to have
more review time and discuss voluntary cleanup options (Papelera
Puertorriquena, Inc.) and in order to complete due diligence and
purchase negotiations (Amcast Industrial Corporation). EPA denied both
extension requests. There were no errors in the materials available
during the comment period in either docket, and therefore, the
commenters had adequate opportunity to comment upon the proposed
listing and the underlying record for the listings. Moreover, EPA is
finalizing the sites because EPA, Puerto Rico and Wisconsin believe
listing is the most effective way of obtaining site cleanup. This
action should not interfere with a voluntary cleanup at Papelera
Puertorriquena, Inc. EPA notes that potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) may undertake the RI/FS and/or remedial design/remedial action
stages under supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with
governmental authorities. PRPs may also take part in the remedy
selection process through public participation opportunities. Regarding
Amcast Industrial Corporation, where a potential developer requested
the extension in order to pursue EPA brownfields grant funding, this
arrangement would have been precluded once the site was proposed; sites
proposed to the NPL are not
[[Page 48417]]
eligible to be considered for brownfields funding. The mayor of
Cedarburg commented in support of listing the Amcast site, which EPA is
doing through this final rule.
In the case of the third site, Flat Creek IMM, four commenters
supported listing but urged EPA to use local workers and implement an
Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) zone set aside. EPA
anticipates using the local work force at later stages of the Superfund
process, but cannot create a HUB zone set aside because this is the
responsibility of the Small Business Administration. Another commenter
raised several different issues regarding the site. The commenter first
provided dates and other site history details that were sometimes
inconsistent with the documentation in the HRS record, which EPA based
on materials from the Montana Department of State Lands. Regardless of
whether the commenter or the State documents are correct, the
differences have no impact on the site score since the information
presented in the Site History and Description sections of the HRS
documentation record was not used to compute the HRS score. The
commenter claimed mining activities did not contaminate the ground
water or surface drinking water. This has no bearing on the score
because neither the ground water pathway nor the surface drinking water
pathway was used in the scoring; the site was scored on the soil
exposure and surface water environmental and human food chain pathways.
The commenter next claimed the levels of lead in two dumptrucks worth
of the tailings were less than the levels in the two batteries of the
commenter's pickup. In response, although lead was identified as being
at the site, it was not used to calculate the site score, and removing
it from the record would have no impact on the score. The commenter
claimed fish still inhabit Flat Creek. This is consistent with the HRS
record, which documents a fishery to be present within Flat Creek. The
commenter also stated that most people have no contact with the
tailings located along Flat Creek. Even if true, this comment does not
affect the HRS site score because the soil exposure pathway scoring for
the site considered locations other than the tailings along Flat Creek
in computing the HRS score. In conclusion, these comments have no
impact on the HRS score or listing decision for the Flat Creek IMM
site.
For the six remaining sites being finalized in this rule, EPA
received no comments during the comment period: Lane Street Ground
Water Contamination; Southwest Jefferson County Mining; Ore Knob Mine;
GMH Electronics; Little Scioto River; and Salford Quarry.
All comments that were received by EPA are contained in the
Headquarters Docket and are also listed in EPA's electronic public
Docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov.
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
[[Page 48418]]
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA 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
1. What Is Executive Order 13132
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.''
2. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable to This Final Rule?
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, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this final
rule.
EPA believes, however, that this final rule may be of significant
interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted with State
officials and/or representatives of State governments early in the
process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. All sites included in this final
rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites in this
rule, EPA received letters of support either from the Governor or a
State official who was delegated the authority by the Governor to speak
on their behalf regarding NPL listing decisions.
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,
[[Page 48419]]
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present
a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage
Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
This 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
[[Page 48420]]
of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (DC Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Dated: September 14, 2009.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
0
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CA............... B.F. Goodrich... Rialto..........
* * * * * * *
IN............... Lane Street Elkhart.........
Ground Water
Contamination.
* * * * * * *
MO............... Southwest Jefferson
Jefferson County..
County Mining.
* * * * * * *
MT............... Flat Creek IMM.. Superior........
* * * * * * *
NC............... Ore Knob Mine... Ashe County.....
* * * * * * *
NC............... GMH Electronics. Roxboro.........
* * * * * * *
NJ............... Curtis Specialty Milford.........
Papers, Inc.
* * * * * * *
OH............... Little Scioto Marion County...
River.
* * * * * * *
PA............... Salford Quarry.. Lower Salford
Township..
* * * * * * *
PR............... Papelera Utuado..........
Puertorriquena,
Inc.
* * * * * * *
WI............... Amcast Cedarburg.......
Industrial
Corporation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 48421]]
[FR Doc. E9-22934 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
