[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61470-61475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19114]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0050, 0051 and 0052; FRL-11235-02-OLEM]
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 three sites to the General Superfund
section of the NPL.
DATES: The rule is effective on October 10, 2023.
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, Site Assessment and Remedy
Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone number: (202) 566-1048, email address:
[email protected].
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.
James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; (212) 637-4342.
Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
4 Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail code 3SD12,
Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814-3355.
Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
(404) 562-8926.
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.
Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mail code SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
(214) 665-3154.
Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; (913) 551-
7956.
David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEM-EM-P, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
(303) 312-6096.
Matt Mitguard, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD-6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
(415) 972-3096.
Brandon Perkins, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail code 13-J07, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-6396.
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
[[Page 61471]]
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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 to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, 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:
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 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
[[Page 61472]]
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 previously, 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.
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 more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.
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 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse.
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 website: https://
www.epa.gov/
[[Page 61473]]
superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
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 website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
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
https://www.regulations.gov (see table below for docket identification
numbers). Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facilities identified in section
II.D.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Metals Corp Whiting... Hammond, IN....... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
050.
Capitol Lakes................... Baton Rouge, LA... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
051.
Fansteel Metals/FMRI............ Muskogee, OK...... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0
052.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the site. These documents are also available online at
https://www.regulations.gov.
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 that support this rule online at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA HQ docket or appropriate
regional docket. 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 individual 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
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name.
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following three sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN.............................. Federated Metals Hammond.
Corp Whiting.
LA.............................. Capitol Lakes..... Baton Rouge.
OK.............................. Fansteel Metals/ Muskogee.
FMRI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule
and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding three sites
to the NPL in this final rule. All three sites were proposed for
addition to the NPL on March 29, 2023 (88 FR 18499).
Comments on the Federated Metals Corp Whiting site are being
addressed in a response to comment support document available in the
public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on
the site, as well as EPA's response, please refer to the support
document available at https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA received no
comments on the Fansteel Metals/FMRI site. Below is a summary of
significant comments received on the remaining site.
Capitol Lakes:
The EPA received one comment supporting the listing of the Capitol
Lakes site and two other comments that did not oppose the addition of
the site to the NPL. In support of listing, a private citizen expressed
concern about the contamination associated with the site and the
impacts to aquatic habitats, noting that mitigation measures would be
beneficial. An additional private citizen that did not oppose the
listing expressed concern over the contamination identified in the
Capitol Lakes.
Paramount Global, while not opposing the placement of the Capitol
Lakes site on the NPL, submitted comments asserting that attribution of
the observed release, even in part, to the former Westinghouse facility
is not supported by available information. Paramount Global stated that
Westinghouse completed remedial activities to address contamination at
the former Westinghouse facility and received a ``no further action''
determination from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) following its remedial activities. Paramount Global commented
that this determination was received prior to LDEQ's subsequent human
health risk assessment of Capitol Lakes. Paramount Global asserted that
these past remedial activities and determination from LDEQ indicated
that the observed release in Capitol Lakes could not be attributed to
former Westinghouse facility.
The Capitol Lakes site was evaluated as a contaminated sediment
plume with no identified source because the EPA could not attribute the
increase in hazardous substance concentrations in
[[Page 61474]]
Capitol Lakes to a particular source or sources. Due to the large
number of industrial and commercial activities in the area, the EPA was
unable to attribute the observed release to a particular site or sites,
including the former Westinghouse facility. The evaluation of a
significant increase in contamination in Capitol Lakes was not
challenged by the commenter.
In explaining the HRS scoring approach, the EPA noted in the HRS
documentation record at proposal that there are many possible sources
of the hazardous substances identified in the sub-watershed; however,
``sampling failed to demonstrate attribution of the increase in
contaminant levels to any specific source.'' Specifically, the HRS
documentation record at proposal indicated that, following a review of
databases, there were multiple possible sources identified in the
vicinity that included municipal and State facilities, railyards, and
various commercial and industrial facilities; samples from multiple
drainage pathways discharging to Capitol Lakes were also collected.
Regarding attribution to the Westinghouse facility, the HRS
documentation record at proposal explained that while PCBs had been
previously identified at the Westinghouse facility, other nearby
facilities had also been identified. The HRS documentation record at
proposal stated that, the Westinghouse facility ``was identified as one
of the sources of PCB contamination in the drainage canal'' and
Westinghouse implemented runoff control measures and removed
contaminated soil following State direction to clean up PCB
contamination at its property. The HRS documentation record at proposal
also indicated that the ``LDEQ also identified multiple other
government and private sector facilities'' that may have been
associated with PCB contamination. As a result of the commingled PCB
and other hazardous substances contamination from known and unknown
possible sources, the HRS documentation record at proposal indicated
that the significant increase of hazardous substances in the observed
release samples in the Capitol Lakes could not be attributed to any
known source or sources. Evaluating this site without attributing the
observed release to a source or sources is consistent with the HRS
because the HRS indicates that no separate attribution is needed when
the site itself consists of contaminated sediments with no identified
source.
Placing a site on the NPL is based on an evaluation, in accordance
with the HRS, of a release or threatened release of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. A subsequent stage of the
Superfund process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes
conditions and hazards at the site more comprehensively. The EPA will
continue to examine a site to determine what response, if any, is
appropriate, during subsequent stages of the Superfund process.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.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 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
[[Page 61475]]
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.
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.
Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. 1251 et seq.; 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. Amend table 1 of appendix B to part 300 by adding entries for ``IN,
Federated Metals Corp Whiting'', ``LA, Capitol Lakes'', and ``OK,
Fansteel Metals/FMRI'' 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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
IN..................................... Federated Metals Corp Hammond...................
Whiting.
* * * * * * *
LA..................................... Capitol Lakes............. Baton Rouge...............
* * * * * * *
OK..................................... Fansteel Metals/FMRI...... Muskogee.................. S
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 2023-19114 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P