80 FR 58620 - National Priorities List
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 189 (September 30, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 189 (September 30, 2015)
| Page Range | 58620-58625 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24330 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 58620-58625] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24330] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0136, 0137, 0138, 0140, and 0141; FRL-9934-75-OSWER] National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 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 (``the EPA'' or ``the agency'') in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the 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 five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. DATES: The document is effective on October 30, 2015. ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276. The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows: Holly Inglis, 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; 617/918-1413. Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344. Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355. Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8799. Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/ 886-4465. Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/ 665-7436. Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., [[Page 58621]] Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097. 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. Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947-4250. Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349. 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. 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 the 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? K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? 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 EPA Headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the 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 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act 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, the 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. The 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 the 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 of only 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 the 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 the 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 the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response [[Page 58622]] 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) 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: (1) 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. (2) The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. (3) The 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. The 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 a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions'' (40 CFR 300.5). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The 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? The 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 the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? In November 1995, the EPA initiated a 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. [[Page 58623]] I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)? The 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) the 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 the EPA's Internet site at http://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 the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the 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. The 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 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf. K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf. The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available. A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm. II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA headquarters and in the EPA regional offices. An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estech General Chemical Company....... Calumet City, IL......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0136 Colonial Creosote..................... Bogalusa, LA............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0137 BJAT LLC.............................. Franklin, MA............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0138 Main Street Ground Water Plume........ Burnet, TX............... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0140 Grain Handling Facility at Freeman.... Freeman, WA.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0141 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters docket? The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record for each site. C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets? The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets. D. How do I access the documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this 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. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see ``ADDRESSES'' section in the beginning portion of this preamble. E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this document). III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL This final rule adds the following five sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL based on HRS score. General Superfund section: [[Page 58624]] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Site name City/County ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IL..................... Estech General Chemical Calumet City. Company. LA..................... Colonial Creosote...... Bogalusa. MA..................... BJAT LLC............... Franklin. TX..................... Main Street Ground Burnet. Water Plume. WA..................... Grain Handling Facility Freeman. at Freeman. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? The EPA is adding five sites to the NPL in this final rule, all to the general Superfund section. All of the sites were proposed for addition to the NPL on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15972). Four of the sites received no comments. They are BJAT LLC in Franklin, MA; Estech General Chemical Company in Calumet City, IL; Colonial Creosote in Bogalusa, LA; and Main Street Ground Water Plume in Burnet, TX. Although two comments were erroneously submitted to the docket for Colonial Creosote along with two erroneous comments for Main Street Ground Water Plume, all four comments related to the Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant. Those comments will be addressed at the time a decision is made on the Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant site. Extensive comments were submitted for the Grain Handling Facility at Freeman in Freeman, WA. Those comments have been addressed in a response to comments support document available in the public docket concurrently with the publication of this rule. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. 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. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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 action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the 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 of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, [[Page 58625]] placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. K. Congressional Review Act This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. 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, the 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, the 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 21, 2015. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 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. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; 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 entries for ``Estech General Chemical Company'', ``Colonial Creosote'', ``BJAT LLC'', ``Main Street Ground Water Plume'' and ``Grain Handling Facility at Freeman'' in alphabetical order by state to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List Table 1--General Superfund Section ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State Site name City/County Notes \(a)\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * IL.......................... Estech General Chemical Calumet City........... Company. * * * * * * * LA.......................... Colonial Creosote........... Bogalusa............... * * * * * * * MA.......................... BJAT LLC.................... Franklin............... * * * * * * * TX.......................... Main Street Ground Water Burnet................. Plume. * * * * * * * WA.......................... Grain Handling Facility at Freeman................ Freeman. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \(a)\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50). * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-24330 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![58620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, VII. Congressional Review Act SUMMARY:The Comprehensive
October 4, 1993). Because this action Pursuant to the Congressional Review Environmental Response,
has been exempted from review under Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
Executive Order 12866, this action is submit a report containing this rule and (‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
not subject to Executive Order 13211, other required information to the U.S. requires that the National Oil and
entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning Senate, the U.S. House of Hazardous Substances Pollution
Regulations That Significantly Affect Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
Representatives, and the Comptroller
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 of national priorities among the known
General of the United States prior to
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive releases or threatened releases of
publication of the rule in the Federal
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of hazardous substances, pollutants or
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
Children from Environmental Health contaminants throughout the United
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, States. The National Priorities List
April 23, 1997). This action does not List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 (‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
contain any information collections Environmental protection, intended primarily to guide the
subject to OMB approval under the Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 Agricultural commodities, Pesticides EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require which sites warrant further
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
any special considerations under investigation. These further
requirements.
Executive Order 12898, entitled investigations will allow the EPA to
‘‘Federal Actions to Address Dated: September 4, 2015. assess the nature and extent of public
Environmental Justice in Minority Susan Lewis, health and environmental risks
Populations and Low-Income Director, Registration Division, Office of associated with the site and to
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Pesticide Programs. determine what CERCLA-financed
1994). Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is remedial action(s), if any, may be
Since tolerances and exemptions that amended as follows: appropriate. This rule adds five sites to
are established on the basis of a petition the General Superfund section of the
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as PART 180—[AMENDED] NPL.
the tolerance in this final rule, do not DATES: The document is effective on
require the issuance of a proposed rule, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
October 30, 2015.
the requirements of the Regulatory continues to read as follows:
ADDRESSES: Contact information for the
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. EPA Headquarters:
seq.), do not apply.
■ 2. In § 180.561, is amended by adding • Docket Coordinator, Headquarters;
This action directly regulates growers,
alphabetically the entries for ‘‘Fruit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes, nor does citrus, group’’, and ‘‘Fruit, pome, group’’ CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read Constitution Avenue NW., William
this action alter the relationships or
as follows: Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room
distribution of power and
3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566–
responsibilities established by Congress
§ 180.561 Acibenzolar-S-methyl; 0276.
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA tolerances for residues. The contact information for the
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
(a) * * * regional dockets is as follows:
has determined that this action will not • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA,
have a substantial direct effect on States (1) * * *
NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
or tribal governments, on the Records and Information Center, 5 Post
Parts per
relationship between the national Commodity million Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA
government and the States or tribal 02109–3912; 617/918–1413.
governments, or on the distribution of • Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY,
power and responsibilities among the * * * * * PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
various levels of government or between Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ......... 0.02 York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344.
the Federal Government and Indian Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ......... 0.03
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE,
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
that Executive Order 13132, entitled * * * * *
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
1999) and Executive Order 13175, * * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015–24463 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am] 814–3355.
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination • Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25,
to this action. In addition, this action Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8799.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
does not impose any enforceable duty or
AGENCY • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI,
contain any unfunded mandate as MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund
described under Title II of the Unfunded 40 CFR Part 300 Division Librarian/SFD Records
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal
1501 et seq.). [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0136, 0137, 0138, Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
This action does not involve any 0140, and 0141; FRL–9934–75–OSWER] Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886–4465.
technical standards that would require • Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA,
Agency consideration of voluntary National Priorities List NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
consensus standards pursuant to section AGENCY: Environmental Protection Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS,
12(d) of the National Technology Agency (EPA). Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665–7436.
Transfer and Advancement Act ACTION: Final rule.
• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO,
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58809/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 58625
placing a site on the NPL does not mean validity of the legislative veto into PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND
that any remedial or removal action question, the EPA has transmitted a HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
necessarily need be taken. copy of this regulation to the Secretary POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN
of the Senate and the Clerk of the House
K. Congressional Review Act
of Representatives. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 300
This action is subject to the CRA, and If action by Congress under either the
the EPA will submit a rule report to continues to read as follows:
CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the
each House of the Congress and to the effective date of this regulation into Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
Comptroller General of the United question, the EPA will publish a 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ document of clarification in the Federal 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Register. 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
Provisions of the Congressional FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
CERCLA may alter the effective date of Environmental protection, Air ■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300
this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous is amended by adding entries for
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or substances, Hazardous waste, ‘‘Estech General Chemical Company’’,
continue in effect, if Congress enacts Intergovernmental relations, Natural ‘‘Colonial Creosote’’, ‘‘BJAT LLC’’,
(and the President signs) a joint resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, ‘‘Main Street Ground Water Plume’’ and
resolution of disapproval, described Reporting and recordkeeping ‘‘Grain Handling Facility at Freeman’’ in
under section 802. Another statutory requirements, Superfund, Water alphabetical order by state to read as
provision that may affect this rule is pollution control, Water supply. follows:
CERCLA section 305, which provides
Dated: September 21, 2015. Appendix B to Part 300—National
for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although Mathy Stanislaus, Priorities List
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the and Emergency Response.
University of Washington v. EPA, 86 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the follows:
TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State Site name City/County Notes (a)
* * * * * * *
IL ....................... Estech General Chemical Company ..................................................... Calumet City.
* * * * * * *
LA ..................... Colonial Creosote .................................................................................. Bogalusa.
* * * * * * *
MA .................... BJAT LLC .............................................................................................. Franklin.
* * * * * * *
TX ..................... Main Street Ground Water Plume ......................................................... Burnet.
* * * * * * *
WA .................... Grain Handling Facility at Freeman ...................................................... Freeman.
* * * * * * *
(a) A
= Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater
than or equal to 28.50).
* * * * * DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR mineral resources regulations to update
[FR Doc. 2015–24330 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am] some fees that cover the BLM’s cost of
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Bureau of Land Management processing certain documents relating to
its minerals programs and some filing
43 CFR Part 3000 fees for mineral-related documents.
[L13100000 PP0000 LLWO310000] These updated fees include those for
actions such as lease renewals and
RIN 1004–AE44
mineral patent adjudications.
Minerals Management: Adjustment of DATES:This final rule is effective
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Cost Recovery Fees October 1, 2015.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, ADDRESSES: You may send inquiries or
Interior. suggestions to Director (630), Bureau of
ACTION: Final rule. Land Management, 2134LM, 1849 C
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Street NW., Washington, DC 20240;
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Attention: RIN 1004–AE44.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58809/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:31:21
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:31:21
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | The document is effective on October 30, 2015. | |
| Contact | Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: [email protected] 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. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 58620 | |
| CFR Associated | 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 and Water Supply |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR