Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75475 

care service recipient means any 

individual who receives home care 

services, as defined in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section, while enrolled, and for 

the remainder of the calendar year after 

ceasing to be enrolled, in a program 

administered by a Federal, state, or local 

government agency that provides 

Federal, state, or local government 

funds, to pay, in whole or in part, for 

home care services for that individual. 

(c) Effective/applicability dates. An 

authorization under paragraph (a) in 

effect prior to December 12, 2013 

continues to be in effect after that date. 

Paragraph (b) of this section applies to 

wages paid on or after January 1, 2014. 

However, pursuant to section 7805(b), 

taxpayers may rely on paragraph (b) of 

this section for all taxable years for 

which a valid designation is in effect 

under paragraph (a) of this section. 

Beth Tucker, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: September 27, 2013. 

Mark J. Mazur, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax 

Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2013–29664 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2012–0069; EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2013–0196, 0197, 0198, 0201, 0202, 0203, 

0204 and 0207; FRL–9903–89–OSWER] 

National Priorities List, Final Rule 

No. 57 

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 nine sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL and changes the name of one NPL 

site. 

DATES: The effective date for this 

amendment to the NCP is January 13, 

2014. 

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. 

• Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, 

MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., 

Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 

66219; 913–551–7335. 

• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, 

ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303–312–6484. 

• 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 headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

C. Site Name Change 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What is Executive Order 12866? 

2. Is this final rule subject to Executive 

Order 12866 review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this final rule? 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How has the EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this final rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
75476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this final rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this final rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this final rule? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act apply to this final 

rule? 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this final rule? 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to 

congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

2. Could the effective date of this final rule 

change? 

3. What could cause a change in the 

effective date of this rule? 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or 

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of 

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, 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. 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 a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions. . . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75477 

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. 

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 Superfundfinanced response has been 

implemented and no further response 

action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

H. May 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 upto-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-forReuse 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
75478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 will be 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. 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 Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for Docket Identification numbers). 

Although not all Docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

Docket materials through the Docket 

facilities identified below in section 

II D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF) (formerly 

known as B.F. Goodrich).

Rialto, CA .............................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574. 

Beck’s Lake ............................................................. South Bend, IN ...................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0196. 

Garden City Ground Water Plume .......................... Garden City, IN ..................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0197. 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination ... Indianapolis, IN ...................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0198. 

Cristex Drum ............................................................ Oxford, NC ............................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0201. 

Hemphill Road TCE ................................................. Gastonia, NC ......................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0202. 

Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) ............................. Farmington, NH ..................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0203. 

Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine .............................. Laguna Pueblo, NM .............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0069. 

Wilcox Oil Company ................................................ Creek County, OK ................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0204. 

Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump ....... Neah Bay, WA ....................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0207. 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the headquarters docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or the EPA listing policies 

that affect the site and a list of 

documents referenced in the 

Documentation Record. For sites that 

received comments during the comment 

period, the Headquarters Docket also 

contains a Support Document that 

includes the EPA’s responses to 

comments. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the regional dockets? 

The Regional Dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters Docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by the EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional Dockets. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Regional Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes the 

EPA’s responses to comments. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding federal holidays. 

Please contact the Regional Dockets for 

hours. 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 notice). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 

nine sites to the General Superfund 

Section of the NPL. All of the sites 

included in this final rulemaking are 

being added to the NPL 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 

IN ................................. Beck’s Lake ................................................................................................................................... South Bend. 

IN ................................. Garden City Ground Water Plume ................................................................................................ Garden City. 

IN ................................. Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination ......................................................................... Indianapolis. 

NC ................................ Cristex Drum ................................................................................................................................. Oxford. 

NC ................................ Hemphill Road TCE ...................................................................................................................... Gastonia. 

NH ................................ Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) .................................................................................................. Farmington. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75479 

State Site name City/county 

NM ............................... Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine ................................................................................................... Laguna Pueblo. 

OK ................................ Wilcox Oil Company ...................................................................................................................... Creek County. 

WA ............................... Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump ............................................................................. Neah Bay. 

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. 

This rule adds nine sites to the NPL, all 

to the General Superfund Section. 

Comments on two of the sites, Beck’s 

Lake (South Bend, IN) and JackpilePaguate Uranium Mine (Laguna Pueblo, 

NM) are being addressed in response to 

comment support documents available 

in the public docket concurrently with 

this rule. Two generic comments, 

applicable to the Jackpile-Paguate 

Uranium Mine and all other sites 

proposed in March 2012, have been 

previously addressed in the September 

2012 NPL final rule preamble (77 FR 

57495, September 18, 2012). 

None of the other seven sites being 

added to the NPL in this rule, which 

were proposed May 24, 2013 (78 FR 

31464), received comments relating to 

the HRS score. Five sites received no 

comments and are, therefore, being 

added to the NPL. They are Collins & 

Aikman Plant (Former) (Farmington, 

NH), Cristex Drum (Oxford, NC), 

Hemphill Road TCE (Gastonia, NC), 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water 

Contamination (Indianapolis, IN) and 

Wilcox Oil Company (Creek County, 

OK). Although one comment was 

submitted to the Hemphill Road TCE 

docket, it was directed at the SmurfitStone Mill site, and will be addressed at 

the time a final decision is made on that 

site. 

The Makah Reservation Warmhouse 

Beach Dump (Neah Bay, WA) received 

one comment which supported placing 

the site on the NPL. In response, the 

Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach 

Dump has been added to the NPL. 

Listing makes a site eligible for remedial 

action funding under CERCLA. The site 

will be further investigated during the 

remedial investigation/feasibility study 

(RI/FS) phase of the Superfund process 

to determine what response, if any, is 

appropriate to ensure protection of 

public health and the environment. 

The Garden City Ground Water Plume 

(Garden City, IN) received one 

comment. The comment stated that 

tribal governments should be required 

to allow access to all records to any 

American taxpayer who requested it. 

The comment must have been directed 

to the wrong docket, since the Garden 

City Ground Water Plume has no tribal 

involvement. If the comment was 

directed to the Makah Reservation 

Warmhouse Beach Dump, as opposed to 

some other regulatory docket, EPA’s 

response is that this issue is unrelated 

to listing and thus has no bearing on 

EPA’s decision to list the site. 

C. Site Name Change 

The EPA is changing the name of the 

B.F. Goodrich site in Rialto, California 

to Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF). 

This site was added to the NPL on 

September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48412). This 

name change was proposed on May 24, 

2013 (78 FR 31464) (docket number 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574). In 

response to a request by a Settling Work 

Party to change the site name, EPA had 

proposed changing the name to Locust 

Ave. The City of Rialto submitted 

comments in opposition to the new 

proposed name. The comments stated 

that the proposed name would 

stigmatize the local community and 

confuse the general public about the 

nature of the contamination. The 

comments included a unanimous 

resolution passed by the City Council 

and signed by the Mayor reflecting the 

community’s unequivocal disapproval 

of the new proposed site name. 

In response, the new site name has 

been revised to Rockets, Fireworks, and 

Flares (RFF). Since the primary purpose 

of an NPL listing is to inform the public 

that the EPA has determined that the 

site warrants further investigation, the 

EPA attempts to select the name that 

clearly informs the public but, when 

possible, does not offend local 

sensitivities. With the limited purpose 

of the NPL, as stated in RSR Corp. v. 

EPA, 102 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1997), 

when naming a site, EPA may choose a 

name that reflects ‘‘the location or 

nature of the problems at a site and that 

are readily and easily associated with 

the site by the general public.’’ The new 

name informs the public of activities 

that are believed to have contributed to 

contamination at the site. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What is Executive Order 12866? 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

2. Is this final rule subject to Executive 

Order 12866 review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
75480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this final rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. the EPA has 

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain or disclose 

or provide information to or for a federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information 

and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; search data 

sources; complete and review the 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. How has the EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by state, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before the EPA 

promulgates a rule where a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before the EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of the EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates and 

informing, educating and advising small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? 

This final rule does not contain a 

federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not itself impose any costs. Listing 

does not mean that the EPA necessarily 

will undertake remedial action. Nor 

does listing require any action by a 

private party or determine liability for 

response costs. Costs that arise out of 

site responses result from site-specific 

decisions regarding what actions to take, 

not directly from the act of placing a site 

on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As is 

mentioned above, site listing does not 

impose any costs and would not require 

any action of a small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this final rule? 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it does 

not contain any requirements applicable 

to states or other levels of government. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75481 

Thus, the requirements of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this final rule. 

The EPA believes, however, that this 

final rule may be of significant interest 

to state governments. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA 

therefore consulted with state officials 

and/or representatives of state 

governments early in the process of 

developing the rule to permit them to 

have meaningful and timely input into 

its development. All sites included in 

this final rule were referred to the EPA 

by states for listing. For all sites in this 

rule, the EPA received letters of support 

either from the governor or a state 

official who was delegated the authority 

by the governor to speak on their behalf 

regarding NPL listing decisions. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this final rule? 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Listing a site on the NPL does not 

impose any costs on a tribe or require 

a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this final rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this section 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), requires federal agencies to 

prepare a ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’ 

when undertaking certain regulatory 

actions. A Statement of Energy Effects 

describes the adverse effects of a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ on energy 

supply, distribution, and use, 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

the expected effects of the alternatives 

on energy supply, distribution, and use. 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this final rule? 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

Further, the agency has concluded that 

this final rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts because adding 

a site to the NPL does not require an 

entity to conduct any action that would 

require energy use, let alone that which 

would significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution or usage. Thus, 

Executive Order 13211 does not apply 

to this action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 

this final rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this final rule? 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. As this rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty upon state, 

tribal or local governments, this rule 

will neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
75482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA has 

submitted a report containing this rule 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ cannot take 

effect until 60 days after it is published 

in the Federal Register. This rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

2. Could the effective date of this final 

rule change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

The EPA has submitted a report under 

the CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. NPL listing 

is not a major rule because, by itself, 

imposes no monetary costs on any 

person. It establishes no enforceable 

duties, does not establish that the EPA 

necessarily will undertake remedial 

action, nor does it require any action by 

any party or determine liability for site 

response costs. Costs that arise out of 

site responses result from site-by-site 

decisions about what actions to take, not 

directly from the act of listing itself. 

Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in 

the effective date of major rules after 

this report is submitted. 

3. What could cause a change in the 

effective date of this rule? 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall 

not take effect, or continue in effect, if 

Congress enacts (and the President 

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, 

described under section 802. 

Another statutory provision that may 

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, 

which provides for a legislative veto of 

regulations promulgated under 

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 

U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. 

of Regents of the University of 

Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 

(D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the 

legislative veto into question, 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: November 27, 2013. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the site name entry located 

in Rialto, California that currently 

reads’’ B.F. Goodrich’’ to read ‘‘Rockets, 

Fireworks, and Flares (RFF).’’; and 

■ b. Adding entries for ‘‘Beck’s Lake, 

Garden City Ground Water Plume, 

Keystone Corridor Ground Water 

Contamination, Cristex Drum, Hemphill 

Road TCE, Collins & Aikman Plant 

(Former), Jackpile-Paguate Uranium 

Mine, Wilcox Oil Company, and Makah 

Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump’’ 

in alphabetical order by state; 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

*******

CA .................... Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF) ................................................................................ Rialto 

* * * * * * * 

IN ...................... Beck’s Lake ......................................................................................................................... South Bend 

* * * * * * * 

IN ...................... Garden City Ground Water Plume ...................................................................................... Garden City 

*******

IN ...................... Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination ............................................................... Indianapolis 

*******

NC .................... Cristex Drum ....................................................................................................................... Oxford 

*******

NC .................... Hemphill Road TCE ............................................................................................................ Gastonia 

*******

NH .................... Collins & Aikman Plant (Former) ........................................................................................ Farmington 

*******

NM .................... Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine ......................................................................................... Laguna Pueblo 

*******

OK .................... Wilcox Oil Company ............................................................................................................ Creek County 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 75483 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

*******

WA .................... Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump ................................................................... Neah Bay 

*******

(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). 

S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score). 

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–29350 Filed 12–11–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 302–7 

[FTR Amendment 2013–03; FTR Case 

2013–301; Docket No. 2013–0011, 

Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ40 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Relocation Allowances; Commuted 

Rate 

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide 

Policy (OGP), U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The GSA, OGP, is providing 

a workable commuted rate to be used by 

agencies in determining a benchmark 

for payment on the transportation of 

household goods and temporary storage 

under a ‘‘do it yourself’’ move cost 

scenario. This final rule will meet the 

requirements set forth in the U.S. Code 

for Relocation Expenses. 

DATES: Effective: This final rule is 

effective December 12, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact the U.S. General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

2nd Floor Washington, DC 20405–0001, 

202–501–4755, for information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules. For clarification of content, 

contact Mr. Ed Davis, Office of 

Governmentwide Policy (MA), at 202– 

208–7639 or email at ed.davis@gsa.gov. 

Please cite FTR Amendment 2013–03, 

FTR case 2013–301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

5 U.S.C. 5724(c) requires that GSA 

maintain a commuted rate incorporating 

all aspects of household goods shipping 

that is based on a per 100 pound rate 

fixed by zones. The GSA OGP is issuing 

a new commuted rate chart to meet the 

requirements of this law. 

The U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Surface Transportation 

Board (STB) ruled that the American 

Moving and Storage Association 

(AMSA) could no longer provide a 

standard tariff for HouseHold Goods 

(HHG) shipments. The effective date for 

this ruling was January 1, 2008. Prior to 

January 1, 2008, the AMSA 415–G tariff 

was treated by Federal agencies as the 

commuted rate; that is, when a Federal 

employee moved his/her own 

household goods or hired his/her own 

mover, the AMSA tariff was used by the 

agency as a benchmark, to help 

determine whether the agency should 

reimburse the full amount the employee 

vouchered for. Agencies are still 

required to do this in accordance with 

the regulations at Federal Management 

Regulation (FMR) section 102–117.225 

and Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 

section 302–7, subpart B. Both of these 

regulations were made obsolete by the 

STB ruling. 

Since both the FMR and FTR address 

the commuted rate, GSA is concurrently 

publishing an FMR Bulletin and an FTR 

Bulletin on this issue. 

B. Changes to the Current FTR 

This final rule— 

• Revises section 302–7.101 to direct 

the reader to the GSA Web site to 

calculate commuted rate shipments. 

• Revises section 302–7.102 to direct 

the reader to use the tariffs filed with 

GSA travel management centers. 

• Adds new section 302–7.110 to 

direct the reader to the GSA Web site to 

calculate commuted rate shipments. 

C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under Section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule is not required to be 

published in the Federal Register for 

notice and comment as per the 

exemption specified in 5 U.S.C. 

553(a)(2); therefore, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 

does not apply. However, this final rule 

is being published to provide 

transparency in the promulgation of 

Federal policies. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the changes to the 

Federal Travel Regulation do not 

impose recordkeeping or information 

collection requirements, or the 

collection of information from offerors, 

contractors, or members of the public 

that require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

F. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

This final rule is also exempt from 

congressional review prescribed under 5 

U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to 

agency management and personnel. 

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 302–7 

Government employees, 

Transportation and storage of property, 

Travel and transportation expenses. 

Dated: November 25, 2013. 

Dan Tangherlini, 

Administrator of General Services. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, under 5 U.S.C. 5738, 5 U.S.C. 

5724(c) and 20 U.S.C. 905(a), GSA is 

amending 41 CFR part 302–7 as follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES