80 FR 58658 - 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 | 58658-58663 | |
| FR Document | 2015-24318 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 58658-58663] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-24318] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0573, 0574, 0575, 0576, 0578, 0579 and 0580; FRL- 9934-76-OSWER] National Priorities List AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``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 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 proposes to add seven sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 30, 2015. ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below. Docket Identification Numbers by Site ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PCE Former Dry Cleaner................ Atlantic, IA............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0573 Old American Zinc Plant............... Fairmont City, IL........ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0574 West Vermont Drinking Water Indianapolis, IN......... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0575 Contamination. SBA Shipyard.......................... Jennings, LA............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0576 Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co........ Norfolk, NE.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0578 Former Kil-Tone Company............... Vineland, NJ............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0579 Lea and West Second Street............ Roswell, NM.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0580 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 58659]] Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. listed above to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 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. 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. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule? B. How do I access the documents? C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters docket? D. What documents are available for public review at the regional dockets? E. How do I submit my comments? F. What happens to my comments? G. What should I consider when preparing my comments? H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over? I. May I view public comments submitted by others? J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 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 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 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 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) [[Page 58660]] 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 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. The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. 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 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.'' 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. The 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: [[Page 58661]] (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. 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 (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) 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 is improving 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 from this point forward 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. Public Review/Public Comment A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule? Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ``Addresses'' section above). B. How do I access the documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed 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. The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: 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. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) 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., Mailcode SUPRERNB, 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. You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; [[Page 58662]] since the EPA dockets are not equipped to either copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically. You may use the docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the ``Addresses'' section above). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are outlined below. C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters docket? The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record. D. What documents are available for public review at the regional dockets? The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets. E. How do I submit my comments? Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ``Addresses'' section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail. F. What happens to my comments? The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL. G. What should I consider when preparing my comments? Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over? Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments. I. May I view public comments submitted by others? During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes. All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at http://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL? In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket. III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL In today's proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add seven sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the table below. General Superfund section ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Site name City/County ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IA..................... PCE Former Dry Cleaner. Atlantic IL..................... Old American Zinc Plant Fairmont City IN..................... West Vermont Drinking Indianapolis Water Contamination. LA..................... SBA Shipyard........... Jennings NE..................... Iowa-Nebraska Light & Norfolk Power Co. NJ..................... Former Kil-Tone Company Vineland NM..................... Lea and West Second Roswell Street. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [[Page 58663]] 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 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, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. 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. 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. Dated: September 21, 2015. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 2015-24318 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![58658 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules
accompanying approval of a • Are not subject to requirements of Dated: September 18, 2015.
maintenance plan under section Section 12(d) of the National Jared Blumenfeld,
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the Technology Transfer and Advancement Regional Administrator, Region IX.
status of a geographical area and do not Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because [FR Doc. 2015–24854 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
impose any additional regulatory application of those requirements would BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
requirements on sources beyond those be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
imposed by state law. Redesignation to and,
attainment does not in and of itself • Do not provide the EPA with the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
create any new requirements, but rather discretionary authority to address AGENCY
results in the applicability of disproportionate human health or
requirements contained in the CAA for environmental effects with practical, 40 CFR Part 300
areas that have been redesignated to appropriate, and legally permissible
attainment. Moreover, the Administrator methods under Executive Order 12898 [EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0573, 0574, 0575,
is required to approve a SIP submission (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 0576, 0578, 0579 and 0580; FRL–9934–76–
that complies with the provisions of the In addition, the State plan for which OSWER]
Act and applicable Federal regulations. the EPA is proposing approval does not
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). apply on any Indian reservation land or National Priorities List
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, in any other area where the EPA or an
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Indian tribe has demonstrated that a AGENCY: Environmental Protection
provided that they meet the criteria of tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Agency (EPA).
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, these Indian country, the proposed rule, as it
ACTION: Proposed rule.
actions merely propose to approve a relates to the maintenance plan, does
State plan and redesignation request as not have tribal implications and will not SUMMARY: The Comprehensive
meeting Federal requirements and do impose substantial direct costs on tribal Environmental Response,
not impose additional requirements governments or preempt tribal law as Compensation, and Liability Act
beyond those imposed by state law. For specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
these reasons, these proposed actions: FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, requires that the National Oil and
• Are not a ‘‘significant regulatory the EPA has contacted the Reno-Sparks Hazardous Substances Pollution
action’’ subject to review by the Office Indian Colony and invited them to Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
of Management and Budget under consult on today’s action. The Reno- of national priorities among the known
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Sparks Indian Colony, which consists of releases or threatened releases of
October 4, 1993); members of three Great Basin Tribes—
• Do not impose an information hazardous substances, pollutants or
the Paiute, the Shoshone, and the contaminants throughout the United
collection burden under the provisions Washo—and which has Indian country
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 States. The National Priorities List
within the Truckee Meadows air quality (‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); planning area because the Indian
• Are certified as not having a intended primarily to guide the
country within the Truckee Meadows Environmental Protection Agency
significant economic impact on a area would be redesignated to
substantial number of small entities (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining
attainment along with State lands if the which sites warrant further
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 EPA were to finalize the proposed rules,
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); investigation. These further
as set forth herein.
• Do not contain any unfunded investigations will allow the EPA to
mandate or significantly or uniquely List of Subjects assess the nature and extent of public
affect small governments, as described health and environmental risks
40 CFR Part 52
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act associated with the site and to
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Environmental protection, Air determine what CERCLA-financed
• Do not have Federalism pollution control, Incorporation by remedial action(s), if any, may be
implications as specified in Executive reference, Intergovernmental relations, appropriate. This rule proposes to add
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, seven sites to the General Superfund
1999); Reporting and recordkeeping section of the NPL.
• Are not an economically significant requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
DATES:Comments regarding any of these
regulatory action based on health or 40 CFR Part 81 proposed listings must be submitted
safety risks subject to Executive Order
Environmental protection, Air (postmarked) on or before November 30,
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
pollution control, National parks, 2015.
• Are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211 Wilderness areas. ADDRESSES:Identify the appropriate
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. docket number from the table below.
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
PCE Former Dry Cleaner ............................................................................ Atlantic, IA ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0573
Old American Zinc Plant ............................................................................. Fairmont City, IL ............................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0574
West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination ............................................ Indianapolis, IN ................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0575
SBA Shipyard .............................................................................................. Jennings, LA .................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0576
Iowa-Nebraska Light & Power Co ............................................................... Norfolk, NE ....................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0578
Former Kil-Tone Company .......................................................................... Vineland, NJ ..................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0579
Lea and West Second Street ...................................................................... Roswell, NM ..................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0580
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58847/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Proposed Rules 58663
information collection requirements that G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
require approval of the OMB. Children From Environmental Health Reporting and recordkeeping
and Safety Risks requirements, Superfund, Water
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) pollution control, Water supply.
The EPA interprets Executive Order
I certify that this action will not have 13045 as applying only to those Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
a significant economic impact on a regulatory actions that concern 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR,
substantial number of small entities environmental health or safety risks that 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757,
the EPA has reason to believe may 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52
under the RFA. This action will not FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
impose any requirements on small disproportionately affect children, per
entities. This rule listing sites on the the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Dated: September 21, 2015.
NPL does not impose any obligations on action’’ in section 2–202 of the Mathy Stanislaus,
any group, including small entities. This Executive Order. This action is not Assistant Administrator,Office of Solid Waste
rule also does not establish standards or subject to Executive Order 13045 and Emergency Response.
because this action itself is procedural [FR Doc. 2015–24318 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
requirements that any small entity must
in nature (adds sites to a list) and does BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
meet, and imposes no direct costs on
not, in and of itself, provide protection
any small entity. Whether an entity, from environmental health and safety
small or otherwise, is liable for response risks. Separate future regulatory actions
costs for a release of hazardous are required for mitigation of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
substances depends on whether that environmental health and safety risks.
entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Office of the Secretary
Any such liability exists regardless of H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
whether the site is listed on the NPL Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 43 CFR Part 2
through this rulemaking.
Distribution, or Use
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act [13XD4523WS DS10200000
This action is not subject to Executive DWSN00000.000000 WBS DP10202]
(UMRA) Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
This action does not contain any RIN 1093–AA19
Executive Order 12866.
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does I. National Technology Transfer and Freedom of Information Act
not significantly or uniquely affect small Advancement Act (NTTAA) Regulations
governments. This action imposes no This rulemaking does not involve AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.
enforceable duty on any state, local or technical standards.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
tribal governments or the private sector.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself SUMMARY: This rule would revise the
Actions To Address Environmental
impose any costs. Listing does not mean Justice in Minority Populations and regulations that the Department of the
that the EPA necessarily will undertake Low-Income Populations Interior (Department) follows in
remedial action. Nor does listing require processing records under the Freedom
any action by a private party, state, local The EPA believes the human health or
of Information Act. The revisions clarify
environmental risk addressed by this
or tribal governments or determine and update procedures for requesting
action will not have potential
liability for response costs. Costs that information from the Department and
disproportionately high and adverse
arise out of site responses result from procedures that the Department follows
human health or environmental effects
future site-specific decisions regarding in responding to requests from the
on minority, low-income or indigenous
what actions to take, not directly from public.
populations because it does not affect
the act of placing a site on the NPL the level of protection provided to DATES: Comments on the rulemaking
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism human health or the environment. As must be submitted on or before
discussed in Section I.C. of the November 30, 2015.
This rule does not have federalism preamble to this action, the NPL is a list ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
implications. It will not have substantial of national priorities. The NPL is on the rulemaking by either of the
direct effects on the states, on the intended primarily to guide the EPA in methods listed below. Please use
relationship between the national determining which sites warrant further Regulation Identifier Number 1093–
government and the states, or on the investigation to assess the nature and AA19 in your message.
distribution of power and extent of public health and 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
responsibilities among the various environmental risks associated with a http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
levels of government. release of hazardous substances, instructions on the Web site for
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is submitting comments.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation of only limited significance as it does 2. U.S. mail, courier, or hand delivery:
and Coordination With Indian Tribal not assign liability to any party. Also, Executive Secretariat—FOIA
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Governments placing a site on the NPL does not mean regulations, Department of the Interior,
that any remedial or removal action 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC
This action does not have tribal necessarily need be taken. 20240.
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
does not impose any costs on a tribe or Environmental protection, Air Cindy Cafaro, Office of Executive
require a tribe to take remedial action. pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, 202–
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not substances, Hazardous waste, 208–5342.
apply to this action. Intergovernmental relations, Natural SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:54 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30SEP1.SGM 30SEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_58847/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 09:32:01
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 09:32:01
| 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 | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 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 58658 | |
| 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