National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 52, 57662-57671 [2011-23652]
Download as PDF
57662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733;
telephone number: (214) 665–7437; email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, 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.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Accordingly, the amendment to Table
1 of Appendix B to CFR part 300 to
remove the entry ‘‘State Marine of Port
Arthur Superfund Site,’’ ‘‘Port Arthur,
Texas,’’ is withdrawn as of September
16, 2011.
[FR Doc. 2011–23823 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
through the https://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the docket
index, some information is not publicly
available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by
statute). Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733;
Hours of operation: Monday thru
Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to
4 p.m.. Contact: Rafael A. Casanova
(214) 665–7437.
2. Port Arthur Public Library; 4615
9th Avenue; Port Arthur, Texas 77642–
5799; Hours of operation: Monday thru
Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday, 9
a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.; and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 300
Rafael A. Casanova, Remedial Project
Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division
(6SF–RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733;
telephone number: (214) 665–7437; email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov.
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9465–5]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
AGENCY:
On July 29, 2011, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Intent to Delete
and a Direct Notice of Deletion for the
Palmer Barge Line (PBL) Superfund Site
from the National Priorities List. The
EPA is withdrawing the Final Direct
Notice of Deletion because the deletion
notices were published in the Federal
Register without Headquarter’s
concurrence as required under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act Delegation of Authority.
DATES: Effective Date: This withdrawal
of the direct final action (76 FR 45432)
is effective as of September 16, 2011.
ADDRESSES:
Information Repositories:
Comprehensive information on the PBL
Superfund Site, as well as the comments
that we received during the comment
period, are available in Docket EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2000–0003, accessed
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, 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.
Dated: September 6, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Accordingly, the amendment to Table
1 of Appendix B to CFR part 300 to
remove the entry ‘‘Palmer Barge Line
Superfund Site,’’ ‘‘Port Arthur, Texas,’’ is
withdrawn as of September 16, 2011.
[FR Doc. 2011–23870 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001; EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2010–0640 and 0641, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2011–0057, 0058, 0061, 0062, 0065,
0066, 0070, 0072, 0074, 0076, 0077, and
0078, FRL–9464–6]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No.
52
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess
the nature and extent of public health
and environmental risks associated with
the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may
be appropriate. This rule adds 15 sites
to the NPL, all to the General Superfund
Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
for this amendment to the NCP is
October 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: For addresses for the
Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these
dockets contain, see section II,
‘‘Availability of Information to the
Public’’ in the ‘‘Supplementary
Information’’ portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site
Assessment and Remedy Decisions
Branch; Assessment and Remediation
Division; Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation (Mailcode 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review 13563
1. What Are Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563?
2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
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. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to
this final rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to
this final rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to
this final rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to
this final rule?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57663
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
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
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
57664
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action
financed by the Trust Fund established
under CERCLA (commonly referred to
as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is
placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those
‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to
removal actions. ***’’ 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR
300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL
‘‘does not imply that monies will be
expended.’’ EPA may pursue other
appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action
under CERCLA and other laws.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
for the contamination located on the
plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the
Remedial Investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a
process undertaken * * * to determine
the nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release’’ as more
information is developed on site
contamination, and which is generally
performed in an interactive fashion with
the Feasibility Study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR
300.5). During the RI/FS process, the
release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as
more is learned about the source(s) and
the migration of the contamination.
However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed and
therefore the boundaries of the release
need not be exactly defined. Moreover,
it generally is impossible to discover the
full extent of where the contamination
‘‘has come to be located’’ before all
necessary studies and remedial work are
completed at a site. Indeed, the known
boundaries of the contamination can be
expected to change over time. Thus, in
most cases, it may be impossible to
describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing
does not assign liability to any party or
to the owner of any specific property.
Thus, if a party does not believe it is
liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting
information to the Agency at any time
after it receives notice it is a potentially
responsible party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not
be amended as further research reveals
more information about the location of
the contamination or release.
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
EPA may delete sites from the NPL
where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as
explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides
that EPA shall consult with states on
proposed deletions and shall consider
whether any of the following criteria
have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate 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.
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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 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 for
57665
current and future land uses, in a
manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality.
For further information, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recycle/tools/.
II. Availability of Information to the
Public
A. May I review the documents relevant
to this final rule?
Yes, documents relating to the
evaluation and scoring of the sites in
this final rule are contained in dockets
located both at EPA Headquarters and in
the Regional offices.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through https://
www.regulations.gov (see table below
for Docket Identification numbers).
Although not all Docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket
facilities identified below in section II
D.
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name
City/county, state
Blue Ledge Mine .........................................................
New Idria Mercury Mine ..............................................
Armstrong World Industries ........................................
Sandoval Zinc Company .............................................
Gary Development Landfill .........................................
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus ....................
Red Panther Chemical Company ...............................
Horton Iron and Metal .................................................
Garfield Ground Water Contamination .......................
Chevron Questa Mine .................................................
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination
North Ridge Estates ....................................................
US Finishing/Cone Mills ..............................................
Alamo Contaminated Ground Water ..........................
Falcon Refinery ...........................................................
Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest, CA .............
Idria, CA .....................................................................
Macon, GA .................................................................
Sandoval, IL ...............................................................
Gary, IN .....................................................................
Columbus, MS ...........................................................
Clarksdale, MS ..........................................................
Wilmington, NC ..........................................................
Garfield, NJ ................................................................
Questa, NM ................................................................
New Cassel/Hicksville, NY ........................................
Klamath Falls, OR .....................................................
Greenville, SC ............................................................
Alamo, TN ..................................................................
Ingleside, TX ..............................................................
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. What documents are available for
review at the headquarters docket?
C. What documents are available for
review at the regional dockets?
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.
The Regional Dockets contain all the
information in the Headquarters Docket,
plus the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied
upon by EPA in calculating or
evaluating the HRS score for the sites
located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the
Regional Dockets. For sites that received
comments during the comment period,
the Regional Docket also contains a
Support Document that includes EPA’s
responses to comments.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, after the publication
of this rule. The hours of operation for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0057
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0058
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0640
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0061
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0062
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0065
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0066
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0641
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0070
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0072
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0074
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0076
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0077
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0078
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001
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, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
MA 02109–3912 ; 617/918–1417.
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
57666
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR,
VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344.
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.
Evette Jones, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN,
OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center,
Superfund Division SRC–7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886–7572.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM,
OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SF,
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.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND,
SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–
6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV,
AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–6–1,
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/sites/npl/
status.htm 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 15
sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section. All of the sites
included in this final rulemaking are
being added to the NPL based on HRS
scores of 28.50 or above with the
exceptions of North Ridge Estates
(Klamath Falls, OR), which is being
added based on its designation as the
state’s top priority, and Garfield Ground
Water Contamination (Garfield, NJ),
which is being added based on ATSDR
health advisory criteria (see further
discussion in Section C below). The
sites are presented in the table below:
State
Site name
CA .....
Blue Ledge Mine .................................................................................................................................
CA .....
GA .....
IL .......
IN .......
MS .....
MS .....
NC .....
NJ ......
NM .....
NY .....
OR .....
SC .....
TN ......
TX ......
New Idria Mercury Mine ......................................................................................................................
Armstrong World Industries .................................................................................................................
Sandoval Zinc Company .....................................................................................................................
Gary Development Company ..............................................................................................................
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus ............................................................................................
Red Panther Chemical Company ........................................................................................................
Horton Iron and Metal .........................................................................................................................
Garfield Ground Water Contamination ................................................................................................
Chevron Questa Mine .........................................................................................................................
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination .........................................................................
North Ridge Estates ............................................................................................................................
US Finishing/Cone Mills ......................................................................................................................
Alamo Contaminated Ground Water ...................................................................................................
Falcon Refinery ...................................................................................................................................
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Site Name Change
The Chevron Questa Mine site in
Questa, New Mexico, was proposed to
the NPL under a different name. The
former name was MolyCorp Inc. (see
Proposed Rule at 76 FR 13113, March
10, 2011). EPA believes the new name,
Chevron Questa Mine, more accurately
identifies the site (see further discussion
in Section C below).
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. This rule adds
15 sites to the NPL.
Six sites received no comments: Gary
Development Landfill (IN) (three
comments were received which were
unrelated to Gary Development Landfill
but erroneously were addressed to the
Gary Development Landfill docket
number); Kerr-McGee Chemical CorpColumbus (MS); Red Panther Chemical
Company (MS); US Finishing/Cone
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
City/county
Mills (SC); Alamo Contaminated
Ground Water (TN); and North Ridge
Estates (OR).
Four sites being placed on the NPL
received comments specifically related
to the HRS score and these are being
addressed in response to comment
support documents available concurrent
with this rule: Sandoval Zinc Company
(IL); Armstrong World Industries (GA);
Horton Iron and Metal (NC); and New
Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water
Contamination (NY).
The North Ridge Estates site was
added to the NPL as a one-time state
designation of highest priority pursuant
to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). In accordance
with the Oregon Governor’s designation
letter dated August 31, 2010, the site
consists of areas affected by releases or
threatened releases of asbestos or other
materials within the approximately 422
acres of the North Ridge Estates site.
These areas include the former Marine
Recuperation Barracks location and the
Kingsley Firing Range, identified
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rogue River—Siskiyou
Forest.
Idria.
Macon.
Sandoval.
Gary.
Columbus.
Clarksdale.
Wilmington.
Garfield.
Questa.
New Cassel/Hicksville.
Klamath Falls.
Greenville.
Alamo.
Ingleside.
National
respectively as Operable Units 1 and 2
(OU1 and OU2) in the Record of
Decision (ROD) and other ongoing
investigations between EPA and the
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), as referenced in the
Governor’s designation letter. As
discussed in Section I.F. of this Final
Rule, however, the North Ridge Estates
site may not be limited to these areas or
releases. As stated by the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals, ‘‘EPA may alter or
expand the boundaries of a NPL site if
subsequent study reveals a wider-thanexpected scope of contamination.’’
Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917 F.2d
1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing EaglePicher Indus. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 132, 144
(D.C. Cir. 1987)).
Five sites received minimal
comments: Falcon Refinery (TX); Blue
Ledge Mine (CA); New Idria Mercury
Mine (CA); Garfield Ground Water
Contamination (NJ); and Chevron
Questa Mine (NM). These sites are being
added to the NPL in this rule and
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
comments are addressed below. Falcon
Refinery was proposed September 5,
2002 and the other sites were proposed
March 10, 2011.
EPA received no comments on the
HRS score for the Falcon Refinery site
but did receive one comment requesting
that EPA suspend the final listing and
allow the owner to perform the cleanup
in accordance with EPA guidance for
Superfund Alternative Sites. EPA agreed
to this and entered into an agreement,
leaving the site in proposed status since
2002. The owner has been approved by
EPA to complete the RI/FS, but may not
have the funds to carry out further
cleanup work, should that be necessary
(see information in docket for further
information). Therefore, EPA is adding
the site to the NPL in order for any
potential cleanup activity to proceed in
an expeditious manner. The work
performed to this point has not resulted
in any change to the HRS score at
proposal.
The Blue Ledge Mine site received
one potential comment (which may
actually have been for the New Cassel/
Hicksville site) supporting the listing. If
the comment was regarding the Blue
Ledge site proposal, EPA agrees the site
should be listed so that it can be further
investigated and the EPA can determine
what, if any, response actions are
necessary.
The Chevron Questa Mine site
received 16 supporting comments and
no comments opposing listing. An
additional comment was received from
an unrelated corporation named
Molycorp, Inc., which was formed as a
new Delaware corporation in 2010 and
has no connection to the previous
corporation named MolyCorp, Inc., or to
the site being added to the NPL today.
The commenter requested that the site
name be changed to a name which does
not include ‘‘Molycorp’’ to avoid
confusion to the public and prevent
harm to the recently formed corporation
due to a false impression that it may
have caused contamination of the site or
be responsible for the cleanup and
remediation of the site. EPA agrees with
the commenter’s concern, and has
changed the name to Chevron Questa
Mine to clarify and more accurately
identify the site for the public.
The Garfield Ground Water
Contamination site received one
comment. The comment was related to
another EPA Federal Register notice
seeking public input regarding whether
the HRS should be amended to add a
vapor intrusion component. The
comment said that EPA’s ability to list
the Garfield site showed that addition of
a vapor intrusion component to the HRS
was unnecessary. Since the comment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
was supportive of listing the site, EPA
is proceeding with adding the site to the
NPL.
The New Idria Mercury Mine site
received five comments. Four supported
listing, including one comment that said
mercury at the site was bioavailable and
a serious health concern, and cited
several studies to support these
assertions. One commenter opposed
listing, claiming mercury at the site
would not pose a problem and was not
bioavailable, and that cleanup was a
waste of money. The comment did not
mention the HRS scoring. In response,
the toxicity and bioaccumulation values
assigned to mercury in the
documentation record at proposal are
consistent with the application of the
HRS and no commenter suggested any
other values. The site score based on
these values makes the site eligible for
listing. The HRS does not specifically
consider bioavailability. Cost is not a
factor considered when making a listing
decision. Remedial costs, if any, will be
determined once the risk decision is
made. Placing the site on the NPL will
enable EPA to evaluate whether the site
poses a health risk, whether the mercury
is bioavailable, and what cleanup, if
any, is needed.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
1. What are Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563?
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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57667
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Executive Order 13563, entitled
‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review,’’ was issued on January 18,
2011, and supplements Executive Order
12866 by outlining the President’s
regulatory strategy to support continued
economic growth and job creation,
while protecting the safety, health and
rights of all Americans. The Executive
Order requires considering costs,
reducing burdens on businesses and
consumers, expanding opportunities for
public involvement, designing flexible
approaches, ensuring sound science
forms the basis of decisions, and
retrospectively reviewing existing
regulations.
2. Is this rule subject to Executive Order
12866 and Executive Order 13563
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 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review
under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
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
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
57668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility
Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that a
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
does not impose any requirements on
any small entities. For the foregoing
reasons, I certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What is the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result
in expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. Before EPA
promulgates a rule where a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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’’ are 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. Does Executive Order 13132 apply 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
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
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’’ are 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.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to
this final rule?
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant rule as defined
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
by Executive Order 12866, and because
the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this rule
present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
1. What Is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), requires federal agencies to
prepare a ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’
when undertaking certain regulatory
actions. A Statement of Energy Effects
describes the adverse effects of a
‘‘significant energy action’’ on energy
supply, distribution and use, reasonable
alternatives to the action, and the
expected effects of the alternatives on
energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to
this final rule?
This action is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, 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
final rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy impacts because adding
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57669
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).
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
57670
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
2. Could the effective date of this final
rule change?
Provisions of the Congressional
Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of
this regulation.
Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a),
before a rule can take effect the federal
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller
General. This report must contain a
copy of the rule, a concise general
statement relating to the rule (including
whether it is a major rule), a copy of the
cost-benefit analysis of the rule (if any),
the agency’s actions relevant to
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (affecting small businesses) and the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(describing unfunded federal
requirements imposed on state and local
governments and the private sector),
and any other relevant information or
requirements and any relevant
Executive Orders.
EPA has submitted a report under the
CRA for this rule. The rule will take
effect, as provided by law, within 30
days of publication of this document,
since it is not a major rule. Section
804(2) defines a major rule as any rule
that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or
is likely to result in: An annual effect on
the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets. NPL listing is not a
major rule because, as explained above,
the listing, itself, imposes no monetary
costs on any person. It establishes no
enforceable duties, does not establish
that EPA necessarily will undertake
remedial action, nor does it require any
action by any party or determine
liability for site response costs. Costs
that arise out of site responses result
from site-by-site decisions about what
actions to take, not directly from the act
of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3)
provides for a delay in the effective date
of major rules after this report is
submitted.
3. What could cause a change in the
effective date of this rule?
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall
not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President
signs) a joint resolution of disapproval,
described under section 802.
Another statutory provision that may
affect this rule is CERCLA section 305,
which provides for a legislative veto of
regulations promulgated under
CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462
U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd.
of Regents of the University of
Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222
(D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has
transmitted a copy of this regulation to
the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk
of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the
CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the
effective date of this regulation into
question, EPA will publish a document
of clarification in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: September 8, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
PART 300—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300
is amended by 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 .......... New Idria Mercury Mine ....................................................... Idria
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
GA ......... Armstrong World Industries .................................................. Macon
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IL ............ Sandoval Zinc Company ...................................................... Sandoval
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
IN ........... Gary Development Company ............................................... Gary
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MS ......... Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus ............................. Columbus
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
*
CA .......... Blue Ledge Mine .................................................................. Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MS ......... Red Panther Chemical Company ......................................... Clarksdale
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NC ......... Horton Iron and Metal .......................................................... Wilmington
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
57671
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued
State
Site name
Notes a
City/county
*
*
*
*
NJ .......... Garfield Ground Water Contamination ................................. Garfield
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NM ......... Chevron Questa Mine .......................................................... Questa
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NY .......... New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination .......... New Cassel/Hicksville
*
*
*
*
*
*
OR ......... North Ridge Estates ............................................................. Klamath Falls
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SC .......... US Finishing/Cone Mills ....................................................... Greenville
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TN .......... Alamo Contaminated Ground Water .................................... Alamo
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TX .......... Falcon Refinery .................................................................... Ingleside
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a
A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be greater than or
equal to 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2011–23652 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 203 and 252
[DFARS Case 2010–D026]
RIN 0750–AG98
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Display of
DoD Inspector General Fraud Hotline
Posters
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing a final rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to require contractors to
display the DoD fraud hotline poster in
common work areas.
DATES: Effective Date: September 16,
2011.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Meredith Murphy, 703–602–1302.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:06 Sep 15, 2011
Jkt 223001
I. Background
This final rule implements the
recommendations of the DoD Inspector
General (IG) by providing a DFARS
clause to use in lieu of the FAR clause
at 52.203–14, Display of Hotline
Poster(s).
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) Report GAO–09–591, entitled
‘‘Defense Contracting Integrity:
Opportunities Exist to Improve DoD’s
Oversight of Contractor Ethics
Programs,’’ recommended that the DoD
IG determine the need for defense
contractors to display the DoD IG’s
fraud hotline poster.
The DoD IG determined that DoD
contractors, including contractors that
have an ethics and compliance program
that includes a reporting mechanism
such as a hotline poster, need to display
DoD fraud hotline posters in a common
work area within business segments
performing work under the contract and
at contract work sites.
FAR 52.203–14(c) states that ‘‘(i)f the
Contractor has implemented a business
ethics and conduct awareness program,
including a reporting mechanism, such
as a hotline poster, then the Contractor
need not display any agency fraud
hotline posters, other than any required
DHS posters.’’ The DoD IG determined
that this exemption has the potential to
make the DoD hotline program less
effective by ultimately reducing
contractor exposure to DoD IG fraud
hotline posters and diminishing the
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
means by which fraud, waste, and abuse
can be reported under the protection of
Federal whistleblower protection laws.
According to the DoD IG, some
contractors’ posters may not be as
effective as the DoD poster in
advertising the hotline number, which
is integral to the fraud program. The
DoD IG is also revising the DoD IG fraud
hotline poster to inform contractor
employees of their Federal
whistleblower protections.
Therefore, the prescription for use of
the new DFARS clause provides no
exception to the use of the DoD hotline
poster for contractors that have
implemented a business ethics and
conduct awareness program, even those
that include a reporting mechanism
such as a hotline poster.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD published a proposed rule at 76
FR 13327 on March 11, 2011, to
implement the DoD IG’s policy. Nine
respondents submitted 25 public
comments on the proposed rule. The
comments are summarized and
discussed in the following paragraphs.
A. Supportive Comments
Comments: Four respondents
supported the DFARS rule, stating that
it would assist employees in reporting
fraud, waste, and abuse and might
promote qui tam suits. Two respondents
recommended expanding the rule’s
applicability by (1) Lowering the
E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM
16SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57662-57671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23652]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640 and 0641, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2011-0057, 0058, 0061, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0070, 0072, 0074, 0076, 0077,
and 0078, FRL-9464-6]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 52
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds 15 sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is October 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see section II,
``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the ``Supplementary
Information'' portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 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.
[[Page 57663]]
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 and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
13563
1. What Are Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563?
2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 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. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
1. What is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
1. What is Executive Order 13211?
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
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 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
[[Page 57664]]
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 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.
[[Page 57665]]
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 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 for current and future land uses, in a
manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go
to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters and in the Regional offices.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification
numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in
section II D.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ledge Mine.................... Rogue River--Siskiyou EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0057
National Forest, CA.
New Idria Mercury Mine............. Idria, CA................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0058
Armstrong World Industries......... Macon, GA................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640
Sandoval Zinc Company.............. Sandoval, IL.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0061
Gary Development Landfill.......... Gary, IN.................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0062
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Columbus. Columbus, MS.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0065
Red Panther Chemical Company....... Clarksdale, MS............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0066
Horton Iron and Metal.............. Wilmington, NC............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641
Garfield Ground Water Contamination Garfield, NJ.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0070
Chevron Questa Mine................ Questa, NM................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0072
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water New Cassel/Hicksville, NY. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074
Contamination.
North Ridge Estates................ Klamath Falls, OR......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0076
US Finishing/Cone Mills............ Greenville, SC............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0077
Alamo Contaminated Ground Water.... Alamo, TN................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0078
Falcon Refinery.................... Ingleside, TX............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What documents are available for review at the headquarters docket?
The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list
of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.
C. What documents are available for review at the regional dockets?
The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the
Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.
D. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for
hours.
Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912 ; 617/918-1417.
[[Page 57666]]
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
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.
Evette Jones, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-7572.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SF, 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.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-6-1, 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/sites/npl/status.htm 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 15 sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section. All of the sites included in this final
rulemaking are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above with the exceptions of North Ridge Estates (Klamath Falls, OR),
which is being added based on its designation as the state's top
priority, and Garfield Ground Water Contamination (Garfield, NJ), which
is being added based on ATSDR health advisory criteria (see further
discussion in Section C below). The sites are presented in the table
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA............. Blue Ledge Mine............................... Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest.
CA............. New Idria Mercury Mine........................ Idria.
GA............. Armstrong World Industries.................... Macon.
IL............. Sandoval Zinc Company......................... Sandoval.
IN............. Gary Development Company...................... Gary.
MS............. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Columbus............ Columbus.
MS............. Red Panther Chemical Company.................. Clarksdale.
NC............. Horton Iron and Metal......................... Wilmington.
NJ............. Garfield Ground Water Contamination........... Garfield.
NM............. Chevron Questa Mine........................... Questa.
NY............. New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water New Cassel/Hicksville.
Contamination.
OR............. North Ridge Estates........................... Klamath Falls.
SC............. US Finishing/Cone Mills....................... Greenville.
TN............. Alamo Contaminated Ground Water............... Alamo.
TX............. Falcon Refinery............................... Ingleside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Site Name Change
The Chevron Questa Mine site in Questa, New Mexico, was proposed to
the NPL under a different name. The former name was MolyCorp Inc. (see
Proposed Rule at 76 FR 13113, March 10, 2011). EPA believes the new
name, Chevron Questa Mine, more accurately identifies the site (see
further discussion in Section C below).
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. This rule adds 15 sites to the NPL.
Six sites received no comments: Gary Development Landfill (IN)
(three comments were received which were unrelated to Gary Development
Landfill but erroneously were addressed to the Gary Development
Landfill docket number); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp-Columbus (MS); Red
Panther Chemical Company (MS); US Finishing/Cone Mills (SC); Alamo
Contaminated Ground Water (TN); and North Ridge Estates (OR).
Four sites being placed on the NPL received comments specifically
related to the HRS score and these are being addressed in response to
comment support documents available concurrent with this rule: Sandoval
Zinc Company (IL); Armstrong World Industries (GA); Horton Iron and
Metal (NC); and New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination (NY).
The North Ridge Estates site was added to the NPL as a one-time
state designation of highest priority pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
In accordance with the Oregon Governor's designation letter dated
August 31, 2010, the site consists of areas affected by releases or
threatened releases of asbestos or other materials within the
approximately 422 acres of the North Ridge Estates site. These areas
include the former Marine Recuperation Barracks location and the
Kingsley Firing Range, identified respectively as Operable Units 1 and
2 (OU1 and OU2) in the Record of Decision (ROD) and other ongoing
investigations between EPA and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), as referenced in the Governor's designation letter. As
discussed in Section I.F. of this Final Rule, however, the North Ridge
Estates site may not be limited to these areas or releases. As stated
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ``EPA may alter or expand the
boundaries of a NPL site if subsequent study reveals a wider-than-
expected scope of contamination.'' Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917
F.2d 1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing Eagle-Picher Indus. v. EPA,
822 F.2d 132, 144 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
Five sites received minimal comments: Falcon Refinery (TX); Blue
Ledge Mine (CA); New Idria Mercury Mine (CA); Garfield Ground Water
Contamination (NJ); and Chevron Questa Mine (NM). These sites are being
added to the NPL in this rule and
[[Page 57667]]
comments are addressed below. Falcon Refinery was proposed September 5,
2002 and the other sites were proposed March 10, 2011.
EPA received no comments on the HRS score for the Falcon Refinery
site but did receive one comment requesting that EPA suspend the final
listing and allow the owner to perform the cleanup in accordance with
EPA guidance for Superfund Alternative Sites. EPA agreed to this and
entered into an agreement, leaving the site in proposed status since
2002. The owner has been approved by EPA to complete the RI/FS, but may
not have the funds to carry out further cleanup work, should that be
necessary (see information in docket for further information).
Therefore, EPA is adding the site to the NPL in order for any potential
cleanup activity to proceed in an expeditious manner. The work
performed to this point has not resulted in any change to the HRS score
at proposal.
The Blue Ledge Mine site received one potential comment (which may
actually have been for the New Cassel/Hicksville site) supporting the
listing. If the comment was regarding the Blue Ledge site proposal, EPA
agrees the site should be listed so that it can be further investigated
and the EPA can determine what, if any, response actions are necessary.
The Chevron Questa Mine site received 16 supporting comments and no
comments opposing listing. An additional comment was received from an
unrelated corporation named Molycorp, Inc., which was formed as a new
Delaware corporation in 2010 and has no connection to the previous
corporation named MolyCorp, Inc., or to the site being added to the NPL
today. The commenter requested that the site name be changed to a name
which does not include ``Molycorp'' to avoid confusion to the public
and prevent harm to the recently formed corporation due to a false
impression that it may have caused contamination of the site or be
responsible for the cleanup and remediation of the site. EPA agrees
with the commenter's concern, and has changed the name to Chevron
Questa Mine to clarify and more accurately identify the site for the
public.
The Garfield Ground Water Contamination site received one comment.
The comment was related to another EPA Federal Register notice seeking
public input regarding whether the HRS should be amended to add a vapor
intrusion component. The comment said that EPA's ability to list the
Garfield site showed that addition of a vapor intrusion component to
the HRS was unnecessary. Since the comment was supportive of listing
the site, EPA is proceeding with adding the site to the NPL.
The New Idria Mercury Mine site received five comments. Four
supported listing, including one comment that said mercury at the site
was bioavailable and a serious health concern, and cited several
studies to support these assertions. One commenter opposed listing,
claiming mercury at the site would not pose a problem and was not
bioavailable, and that cleanup was a waste of money. The comment did
not mention the HRS scoring. In response, the toxicity and
bioaccumulation values assigned to mercury in the documentation record
at proposal are consistent with the application of the HRS and no
commenter suggested any other values. The site score based on these
values makes the site eligible for listing. The HRS does not
specifically consider bioavailability. Cost is not a factor considered
when making a listing decision. Remedial costs, if any, will be
determined once the risk decision is made. Placing the site on the NPL
will enable EPA to evaluate whether the site poses a health risk,
whether the mercury is bioavailable, and what cleanup, if any, is
needed.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
1. What are Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563?
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.
Executive Order 13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' was issued on January 18, 2011, and supplements
Executive Order 12866 by outlining the President's regulatory strategy
to support continued economic growth and job creation, while protecting
the safety, health and rights of all Americans. The Executive Order
requires considering costs, reducing burdens on businesses and
consumers, expanding opportunities for public involvement, designing
flexible approaches, ensuring sound science forms the basis of
decisions, and retrospectively reviewing existing regulations.
2. Is this rule subject to Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order
13563 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 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
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
[[Page 57668]]
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA 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'' are 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. Does Executive Order 13132 apply 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
[[Page 57669]]
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'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Listing a site
on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to
take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of 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 rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage
1. What Is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement of
Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, 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 final rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy impacts because adding 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).
[[Page 57670]]
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 liability for site response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site
decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of
listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective
date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this rule?
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Dated: September 8, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
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.................. Blue Ledge Mine............ Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest
* * * * * * *
CA.................. New Idria Mercury Mine..... Idria
* * * * * * *
GA.................. Armstrong World Industries. Macon
* * * * * * *
IL.................. Sandoval Zinc Company...... Sandoval
* * * * * * *
IN.................. Gary Development Company... Gary
* * * * * * *
MS.................. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp-- Columbus
Columbus.
* * * * * * *
MS.................. Red Panther Chemical Clarksdale
Company.
* * * * * * *
NC.................. Horton Iron and Metal...... Wilmington
[[Page 57671]]
* * * * * * *
NJ.................. Garfield Ground Water Garfield
Contamination.
* * * * * * *
NM.................. Chevron Questa Mine........ Questa
* * * * * * *
NY.................. New Cassel/Hicksville New Cassel/Hicksville
Ground Water Contamination.
* * * * * * *
OR.................. North Ridge Estates........ Klamath Falls
* * * * * * *
SC.................. US Finishing/Cone Mills.... Greenville
* * * * * * *
TN.................. Alamo Contaminated Ground Alamo
Water.
* * * * * * *
TX.................. Falcon Refinery............ Ingleside
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need
not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-23652 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P