57662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; 

telephone number: (214) 665–7437; email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Accordingly, the amendment to Table 

1 of Appendix B to CFR part 300 to 

remove the entry ‘‘State Marine of Port 

Arthur Superfund Site,’’ ‘‘Port Arthur, 

Texas,’’ is withdrawn as of September 

16, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23823 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9465–5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 29, 2011, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a Notice of Intent to Delete 

and a Direct Notice of Deletion for the 

Palmer Barge Line (PBL) Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. The 

EPA is withdrawing the Final Direct 

Notice of Deletion because the deletion 

notices were published in the Federal 

Register without Headquarter’s 

concurrence as required under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act Delegation of Authority. 

DATES: Effective Date: This withdrawal 

of the direct final action (76 FR 45432) 

is effective as of September 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: 

Information Repositories: 

Comprehensive information on the PBL 

Superfund Site, as well as the comments 

that we received during the comment 

period, are available in Docket EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2000–0003, accessed 

through the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the docket 

index, some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute). Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; 

Hours of operation: Monday thru 

Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 

4 p.m.. Contact: Rafael A. Casanova 

(214) 665–7437. 

2. Port Arthur Public Library; 4615 

9th Avenue; Port Arthur, Texas 77642– 

5799; Hours of operation: Monday thru 

Thursday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday, 9 

a.m. to 6 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 

p.m.; and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rafael A. Casanova, Remedial Project 

Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division 

(6SF–RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; 

telephone number: (214) 665–7437; email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Accordingly, the amendment to Table 

1 of Appendix B to CFR part 300 to 

remove the entry ‘‘Palmer Barge Line 

Superfund Site,’’ ‘‘Port Arthur, Texas,’’ is 

withdrawn as of September 16, 2011. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23870 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2010–0640 and 0641, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2011–0057, 0058, 0061, 0062, 0065, 

0066, 0070, 0072, 0074, 0076, 0077, and 

0078, FRL–9464–6] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 

52 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may 

be appropriate. This rule adds 15 sites 

to the NPL, all to the General Superfund 

Section. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

for this amendment to the NCP is 

October 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 

well as further details on what these 

dockets contain, see section II, 

‘‘Availability of Information to the 

Public’’ in the ‘‘Supplementary 

Information’’ portion of this preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch; Assessment and Remediation 

Division; Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204P); U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57663 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What Is the NCP? 

C. What Is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of 

Sites? 

G. How Are Sites Removed from the NPL? 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From 

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

I. What Is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant 

to This Final Rule? 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL 

Sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. Site Name Change 

C. What Did EPA Do with the Public 

Comments It Received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 13563 

1. What Are Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563? 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive 

Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 

Review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this final rule? 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How has EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this final rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this final rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this final rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this final rule? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act apply to this final 

rule? 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this final rule? 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA submitted this Rule to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office? 

2. Could the effective date of this Final 

Rule change? 

3. What could Cause a Change in the 

effective date of this rule? 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR part 

300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), 

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). 

As required under section 

105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also 

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

of taking removal action.’’ ‘‘Removal’’ 

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)). 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, 

as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) 

defines the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ 

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide EPA in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’), and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody, or control, although EPA is 

responsible for preparing a Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and 

determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

of the NCP): (1) A site may be included 

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which EPA promulgated as 

appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 

300). The HRS serves as a screening tool 

to evaluate the relative potential of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

uncontrolled hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants to pose a 

threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions 

to the HRS partly in response to 

CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure, and air. As a matter of 

Agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate 

a single site as its top priority to be 

listed on the NPL, without any HRS 

score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each State as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism 

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites 

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• EPA anticipates that it will be more 

cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is 

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). 

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions. ***’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL 

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the 

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

to be located’’ (CERCLA section 101(9)), 

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL 

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

‘‘boundaries’’ of the site. Rather, the site 

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site’’) in terms 

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

not limited to that property (e.g., it may 

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’ 

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’ does not imply 

that the Jones company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

Remedial Investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a 

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

the Feasibility Study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR 

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the Agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

EPA may delete sites from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate 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. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57665 

H. May EPA delete portions of sites from 

the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

In November 1995, EPA initiated a 

new policy to delete portions of NPL 

sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and made available for 

productive use. 

I. What is the construction completion 

list (CCL)? 

EPA also has developed an NPL 

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to 

simplify its system of categorizing sites 

and to better communicate the 

successful completion of cleanup 

activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). 

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no 

legal significance. 

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) 

Any necessary physical construction is 

complete, whether or not final cleanup 

levels or other requirements have been 

achieved; (2) EPA has determined that 

the response action should be limited to 

measures that do not involve 

construction (e.g., institutional 

controls); or (3) the site qualifies for 

deletion from the NPL. For the most upto-date information on the CCL, see 

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 EPA 

places on considering anticipated future 

land use as part of our remedy selection 

process. See Guidance for Implementing 

the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, 

May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This 

measure applies to final and deleted 

sites where construction is complete, all 

cleanup goals have been achieved, and 

all institutional or other controls are in 

place. EPA has been successful on many 

occasions in carrying out remedial 

actions that ensure protectiveness of 

human health and the environment for 

current and future land uses, in a 

manner that allows contaminated 

properties to be restored to 

environmental and economic vitality. 

For further information, please go to 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

programs/recycle/tools/index.html. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at EPA Headquarters and in 

the Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through http:// 

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for Docket Identification numbers). 

Although not all Docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

Docket materials through the Docket 

facilities identified below in section II 

D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Blue Ledge Mine ......................................................... Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest, CA ............. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0057 

New Idria Mercury Mine .............................................. Idria, CA ..................................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0058 

Armstrong World Industries ........................................ Macon, GA ................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0640 

Sandoval Zinc Company ............................................. Sandoval, IL ............................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0061 

Gary Development Landfill ......................................... Gary, IN ..................................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0062 

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus .................... Columbus, MS ........................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0065 

Red Panther Chemical Company ............................... Clarksdale, MS .......................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0066 

Horton Iron and Metal ................................................. Wilmington, NC .......................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0641 

Garfield Ground Water Contamination ....................... Garfield, NJ ................................................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0070 

Chevron Questa Mine ................................................. Questa, NM ................................................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0072 

New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination New Cassel/Hicksville, NY ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0074 

North Ridge Estates .................................................... Klamath Falls, OR ..................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0076 

US Finishing/Cone Mills .............................................. Greenville, SC ............................................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0077 

Alamo Contaminated Ground Water .......................... Alamo, TN .................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0078 

Falcon Refinery ........................................................... Ingleside, TX .............................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2002–0001 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the headquarters docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or EPA listing policies that 

affect the site, and a list of documents 

referenced in the Documentation 

Record. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Headquarters Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the regional dockets? 

The Regional Dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters Docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional Dockets. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Regional Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 

Please contact the Regional Dockets for 

hours. 

Following is the contact information 

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket 

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 

202/566–0276. 

The contact information for the 

Regional Dockets is as follows: 

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, 

NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund 

Records and Information Center, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, 

MA 02109–3912 ; 617/918–1417. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, 

VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New 

York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344. 

Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 

(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 

Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 

3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 

814–5364. 

Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, 

KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8862. 

Evette Jones, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, 

OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, 

Superfund Division SRC–7J, Metcalfe 

Federal Building, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/ 

886–7572. 

Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, 

OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SF, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665– 

7436. 

Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, 

NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, 

Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, 

KS 66101; 913/551–7335. 

Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312– 

6484. 

Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, 

AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–6–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972– 

3219. 

Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, 

WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, 

Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 

98101; 206/463–1349. 

E. How may I obtain a current list of 

NPL sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ 

status.htm or by contacting the 

Superfund Docket (see contact 

information above). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 15 

sites to the NPL, all to the General 

Superfund Section. All of the sites 

included in this final rulemaking are 

being added to the NPL based on HRS 

scores of 28.50 or above with the 

exceptions of North Ridge Estates 

(Klamath Falls, OR), which is being 

added based on its designation as the 

state’s top priority, and Garfield Ground 

Water Contamination (Garfield, NJ), 

which is being added based on ATSDR 

health advisory criteria (see further 

discussion in Section C below). The 

sites are presented in the table below: 

State Site name City/county 

CA ..... Blue Ledge Mine ................................................................................................................................. Rogue River—Siskiyou National 

Forest. 

CA ..... New Idria Mercury Mine ...................................................................................................................... Idria. 

GA ..... Armstrong World Industries ................................................................................................................. Macon. 

IL ....... Sandoval Zinc Company ..................................................................................................................... Sandoval. 

IN ....... Gary Development Company .............................................................................................................. Gary. 

MS ..... Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus ............................................................................................ Columbus. 

MS ..... Red Panther Chemical Company ........................................................................................................ Clarksdale. 

NC ..... Horton Iron and Metal ......................................................................................................................... Wilmington. 

NJ ...... Garfield Ground Water Contamination ................................................................................................ Garfield. 

NM ..... Chevron Questa Mine ......................................................................................................................... Questa. 

NY ..... New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination ......................................................................... New Cassel/Hicksville. 

OR ..... North Ridge Estates ............................................................................................................................ Klamath Falls. 

SC ..... US Finishing/Cone Mills ...................................................................................................................... Greenville. 

TN ...... Alamo Contaminated Ground Water ................................................................................................... Alamo. 

TX ...... Falcon Refinery ................................................................................................................................... Ingleside. 

B. Site Name Change 

The Chevron Questa Mine site in 

Questa, New Mexico, was proposed to 

the NPL under a different name. The 

former name was MolyCorp Inc. (see 

Proposed Rule at 76 FR 13113, March 

10, 2011). EPA believes the new name, 

Chevron Questa Mine, more accurately 

identifies the site (see further discussion 

in Section C below). 

C. What did EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

EPA reviewed all comments received 

on the sites in this rule and responded 

to all relevant comments. This rule adds 

15 sites to the NPL. 

Six sites received no comments: Gary 

Development Landfill (IN) (three 

comments were received which were 

unrelated to Gary Development Landfill 

but erroneously were addressed to the 

Gary Development Landfill docket 

number); Kerr-McGee Chemical CorpColumbus (MS); Red Panther Chemical 

Company (MS); US Finishing/Cone 

Mills (SC); Alamo Contaminated 

Ground Water (TN); and North Ridge 

Estates (OR). 

Four sites being placed on the NPL 

received comments specifically related 

to the HRS score and these are being 

addressed in response to comment 

support documents available concurrent 

with this rule: Sandoval Zinc Company 

(IL); Armstrong World Industries (GA); 

Horton Iron and Metal (NC); and New 

Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water 

Contamination (NY). 

The North Ridge Estates site was 

added to the NPL as a one-time state 

designation of highest priority pursuant 

to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). In accordance 

with the Oregon Governor’s designation 

letter dated August 31, 2010, the site 

consists of areas affected by releases or 

threatened releases of asbestos or other 

materials within the approximately 422 

acres of the North Ridge Estates site. 

These areas include the former Marine 

Recuperation Barracks location and the 

Kingsley Firing Range, identified 

respectively as Operable Units 1 and 2 

(OU1 and OU2) in the Record of 

Decision (ROD) and other ongoing 

investigations between EPA and the 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (DEQ), as referenced in the 

Governor’s designation letter. As 

discussed in Section I.F. of this Final 

Rule, however, the North Ridge Estates 

site may not be limited to these areas or 

releases. As stated by the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals, ‘‘EPA may alter or 

expand the boundaries of a NPL site if 

subsequent study reveals a wider-thanexpected scope of contamination.’’ 

Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917 F.2d 

1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing EaglePicher Indus. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 132, 144 

(D.C. Cir. 1987)). 

Five sites received minimal 

comments: Falcon Refinery (TX); Blue 

Ledge Mine (CA); New Idria Mercury 

Mine (CA); Garfield Ground Water 

Contamination (NJ); and Chevron 

Questa Mine (NM). These sites are being 

added to the NPL in this rule and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57667 

comments are addressed below. Falcon 

Refinery was proposed September 5, 

2002 and the other sites were proposed 

March 10, 2011. 

EPA received no comments on the 

HRS score for the Falcon Refinery site 

but did receive one comment requesting 

that EPA suspend the final listing and 

allow the owner to perform the cleanup 

in accordance with EPA guidance for 

Superfund Alternative Sites. EPA agreed 

to this and entered into an agreement, 

leaving the site in proposed status since 

2002. The owner has been approved by 

EPA to complete the RI/FS, but may not 

have the funds to carry out further 

cleanup work, should that be necessary 

(see information in docket for further 

information). Therefore, EPA is adding 

the site to the NPL in order for any 

potential cleanup activity to proceed in 

an expeditious manner. The work 

performed to this point has not resulted 

in any change to the HRS score at 

proposal. 

The Blue Ledge Mine site received 

one potential comment (which may 

actually have been for the New Cassel/ 

Hicksville site) supporting the listing. If 

the comment was regarding the Blue 

Ledge site proposal, EPA agrees the site 

should be listed so that it can be further 

investigated and the EPA can determine 

what, if any, response actions are 

necessary. 

The Chevron Questa Mine site 

received 16 supporting comments and 

no comments opposing listing. An 

additional comment was received from 

an unrelated corporation named 

Molycorp, Inc., which was formed as a 

new Delaware corporation in 2010 and 

has no connection to the previous 

corporation named MolyCorp, Inc., or to 

the site being added to the NPL today. 

The commenter requested that the site 

name be changed to a name which does 

not include ‘‘Molycorp’’ to avoid 

confusion to the public and prevent 

harm to the recently formed corporation 

due to a false impression that it may 

have caused contamination of the site or 

be responsible for the cleanup and 

remediation of the site. EPA agrees with 

the commenter’s concern, and has 

changed the name to Chevron Questa 

Mine to clarify and more accurately 

identify the site for the public. 

The Garfield Ground Water 

Contamination site received one 

comment. The comment was related to 

another EPA Federal Register notice 

seeking public input regarding whether 

the HRS should be amended to add a 

vapor intrusion component. The 

comment said that EPA’s ability to list 

the Garfield site showed that addition of 

a vapor intrusion component to the HRS 

was unnecessary. Since the comment 

was supportive of listing the site, EPA 

is proceeding with adding the site to the 

NPL. 

The New Idria Mercury Mine site 

received five comments. Four supported 

listing, including one comment that said 

mercury at the site was bioavailable and 

a serious health concern, and cited 

several studies to support these 

assertions. One commenter opposed 

listing, claiming mercury at the site 

would not pose a problem and was not 

bioavailable, and that cleanup was a 

waste of money. The comment did not 

mention the HRS scoring. In response, 

the toxicity and bioaccumulation values 

assigned to mercury in the 

documentation record at proposal are 

consistent with the application of the 

HRS and no commenter suggested any 

other values. The site score based on 

these values makes the site eligible for 

listing. The HRS does not specifically 

consider bioavailability. Cost is not a 

factor considered when making a listing 

decision. Remedial costs, if any, will be 

determined once the risk decision is 

made. Placing the site on the NPL will 

enable EPA to evaluate whether the site 

poses a health risk, whether the mercury 

is bioavailable, and what cleanup, if 

any, is needed. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

1. What are Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563? 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely to 

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

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

Executive Order 13563, entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ was issued on January 18, 

2011, and supplements Executive Order 

12866 by outlining the President’s 

regulatory strategy to support continued 

economic growth and job creation, 

while protecting the safety, health and 

rights of all Americans. The Executive 

Order requires considering costs, 

reducing burdens on businesses and 

consumers, expanding opportunities for 

public involvement, designing flexible 

approaches, ensuring sound science 

forms the basis of decisions, and 

retrospectively reviewing existing 

regulations. 

2. Is this rule subject to Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 

review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and is therefore not subject to review 

under Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this final rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. How has EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result 

in expenditures by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before EPA 

promulgates a rule where a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not itself impose any costs. Listing 

does not mean that EPA necessarily will 

undertake remedial action. Nor does 

listing require any action by a private 

party or determine liability for response 

costs. Costs that arise out of site 

responses result from site-specific 

decisions regarding what actions to take, 

not directly from the act of placing a site 

on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As is 

mentioned above, site listing does not 

impose any costs and would not require 

any action of a small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this final rule? 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it does 

not contain any requirements applicable 

to States or other levels of government. 

Thus, the requirements of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this final rule. 

EPA believes, however, that this final 

rule may be of significant interest to 

State governments. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA therefore 

consulted with State officials and/or 

representatives of State governments 

early in the process of developing the 

rule to permit them to have meaningful 

and timely input into its development. 

All sites included in this final rule were 

referred to EPA by States for listing. For 

all sites in this rule, EPA received letters 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57669 

of support either from the Governor or 

a State official who was delegated the 

authority by the Governor to speak on 

their behalf regarding NPL listing 

decisions. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this final rule? 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Listing a site on the NPL does not 

impose any costs on a tribe or require 

a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this final rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the Agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this rule 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

1. What Is Executive Order 13211? 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), requires federal agencies to 

prepare a ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’ 

when undertaking certain regulatory 

actions. A Statement of Energy Effects 

describes the adverse effects of a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ on energy 

supply, distribution and use, reasonable 

alternatives to the action, and the 

expected effects of the alternatives on 

energy supply, distribution and use. 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this final rule? 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

final rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts because adding 

a site to the NPL does not require an 

entity to conduct any action that would 

require energy use, let alone that which 

would significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution, or usage. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 

this final rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this rule? 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. As this rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty upon 

State, tribal, or local governments, this 

rule will neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA submitted this rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, that includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA has submitted 

a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
57670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Could the effective date of this final 

rule change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), 

before a rule can take effect the federal 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a report to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller 

General. This report must contain a 

copy of the rule, a concise general 

statement relating to the rule (including 

whether it is a major rule), a copy of the 

cost-benefit analysis of the rule (if any), 

the agency’s actions relevant to 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (affecting small businesses) and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(describing unfunded federal 

requirements imposed on state and local 

governments and the private sector), 

and any other relevant information or 

requirements and any relevant 

Executive Orders. 

EPA has submitted a report under the 

CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. Section 

804(2) defines a major rule as any rule 

that the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or 

is likely to result in: An annual effect on 

the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. NPL listing is not a 

major rule because, as explained above, 

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary 

costs on any person. It establishes no 

enforceable duties, does not establish 

that EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action, nor does it require any 

action by any party or determine 

liability for site response costs. Costs 

that arise out of site responses result 

from site-by-site decisions about what 

actions to take, not directly from the act 

of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) 

provides for a delay in the effective date 

of major rules after this report is 

submitted. 

3. What could cause a change in the 

effective date of this rule? 

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

not take effect, or continue in effect, if 

Congress enacts (and the President 

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, 

described under section 802. 

Another statutory provision that may 

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, 

which provides for a legislative veto of 

regulations promulgated under 

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 

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

of Regents of the University of 

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

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

legislative veto into question, EPA has 

transmitted a copy of this regulation to 

the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, EPA will publish a document 

of clarification in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 8, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by adding the following 

sites in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

CA .......... Blue Ledge Mine .................................................................. Rogue River—Siskiyou National Forest 

* * * * * * * 

CA .......... New Idria Mercury Mine ....................................................... Idria 

* * * * * * * 

GA ......... Armstrong World Industries .................................................. Macon 

* * * * * * * 

IL ............ Sandoval Zinc Company ...................................................... Sandoval 

* * * * * * * 

IN ........... Gary Development Company ............................................... Gary 

* * * * * * * 

MS ......... Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp—Columbus ............................. Columbus 

* * * * * * * 

MS ......... Red Panther Chemical Company ......................................... Clarksdale 

* * * * * * * 

NC ......... Horton Iron and Metal .......................................................... Wilmington 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57671 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

NJ .......... Garfield Ground Water Contamination ................................. Garfield 

*******

NM ......... Chevron Questa Mine .......................................................... Questa 

*******

NY .......... New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination .......... New Cassel/Hicksville 

*******

OR ......... North Ridge Estates ............................................................. Klamath Falls 

*******

SC .......... US Finishing/Cone Mills ....................................................... Greenville 

*******

TN .......... Alamo Contaminated Ground Water .................................... Alamo 

*******

TX .......... Falcon Refinery .................................................................... Ingleside 

*******

a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be greater than or 

equal to 28.50). 

C = Sites on Construction Completion list. 

S = State top priority (HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50). 

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–23652 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 203 and 252 

[DFARS Case 2010–D026] 

RIN 0750–AG98 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Display of 

DoD Inspector General Fraud Hotline 

Posters 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to require contractors to 

display the DoD fraud hotline poster in 

common work areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 16, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Meredith Murphy, 703–602–1302. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This final rule implements the 

recommendations of the DoD Inspector 

General (IG) by providing a DFARS 

clause to use in lieu of the FAR clause 

at 52.203–14, Display of Hotline 

Poster(s). 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) Report GAO–09–591, entitled 

‘‘Defense Contracting Integrity: 

Opportunities Exist to Improve DoD’s 

Oversight of Contractor Ethics 

Programs,’’ recommended that the DoD 

IG determine the need for defense 

contractors to display the DoD IG’s 

fraud hotline poster. 

The DoD IG determined that DoD 

contractors, including contractors that 

have an ethics and compliance program 

that includes a reporting mechanism 

such as a hotline poster, need to display 

DoD fraud hotline posters in a common 

work area within business segments 

performing work under the contract and 

at contract work sites. 

FAR 52.203–14(c) states that ‘‘(i)f the 

Contractor has implemented a business 

ethics and conduct awareness program, 

including a reporting mechanism, such 

as a hotline poster, then the Contractor 

need not display any agency fraud 

hotline posters, other than any required 

DHS posters.’’ The DoD IG determined 

that this exemption has the potential to 

make the DoD hotline program less 

effective by ultimately reducing 

contractor exposure to DoD IG fraud 

hotline posters and diminishing the 

means by which fraud, waste, and abuse 

can be reported under the protection of 

Federal whistleblower protection laws. 

According to the DoD IG, some 

contractors’ posters may not be as 

effective as the DoD poster in 

advertising the hotline number, which 

is integral to the fraud program. The 

DoD IG is also revising the DoD IG fraud 

hotline poster to inform contractor 

employees of their Federal 

whistleblower protections. 

Therefore, the prescription for use of 

the new DFARS clause provides no 

exception to the use of the DoD hotline 

poster for contractors that have 

implemented a business ethics and 

conduct awareness program, even those 

that include a reporting mechanism 

such as a hotline poster. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

DoD published a proposed rule at 76 

FR 13327 on March 11, 2011, to 

implement the DoD IG’s policy. Nine 

respondents submitted 25 public 

comments on the proposed rule. The 

comments are summarized and 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

A. Supportive Comments 

Comments: Four respondents 

supported the DFARS rule, stating that 

it would assist employees in reporting 

fraud, waste, and abuse and might 

promote qui tam suits. Two respondents 

recommended expanding the rule’s 

applicability by (1) Lowering the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES