31464 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proposing any action on the portions of 

Sections 22a–174–40(c)(4) through (7) 

and 22a–174–40(f)(2)(C) through (D), 

which Connecticut withdrew from its 

February 1, 2008 SIP submittal. 

EPA is proposing to approve minor 

revisions to the following subsections of 

Connecticut’s Section 22a–174–20: 

(f)(9); (l)(1) and (2); (aa)(1); (cc)(2) and 

(3); and subsection (ee), Reasonably 

available control technology for large 

sources. EPA is also proposing to 

approve Connecticut’s request to 

withdraw subsection (g) of Section 22a– 

174–20, Architectural coatings, from the 

SIP. Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s negative declarations for 

three source categories: Flat wood 

paneling coating; fiberglass and boat 

manufacturing; and automobile and 

light-duty truck assembly coating. 

Therefore, if this proposal is finalized, 

Connecticut will have satisfied the CAA 

requirement to adopt RACT for all of the 

2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this proposal or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

EPA takes final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register, or by submitting comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier following the 

directions in the ADDRESSES section of 

this Federal Register. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12498 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2013–0196, 0197, 0198, 0200, 0201, 

0202, 0203, 0204 and 0207; FRL–9814–9] 

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule 

No. 58 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule proposes to add 

nine sites to the General Superfund 

section of the NPL and proposes to 

change the name of an NPL site. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before July 23, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

Docket Number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Locust Avenue (a.k.a. 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. 

Smurfit-Stone Mill ..................................................................................... Missoula, MT .................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2013–0200. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31465 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE—Continued 

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

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. 

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

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

Submit your comments, identified by 

the appropriate Docket number, by one 

of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: superfund.docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles 

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office; (Mailcode 5305T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Express Mail: 

Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) 

to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

federal holidays). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

the appropriate Docket number (see 

table above). The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public Docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system; 

that means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public Docket and made available on 

the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional Docket 

addresses and further details on their 

contents, see section II, ‘‘Public Review/ 

Public Comment,’’ of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of 

this preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

email: 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. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this proposed rule? 

B. How do I access the documents? 

C. What documents are available for public 

review at the headquarters docket? 

D. What documents are available for public 

review at the regional dockets? 

E. How do I submit my comments? 

F. What happens to my comments? 

G. What should I consider when preparing 

my comments? 

H. May I submit comments after the public 

comment period is over? 

I. May I view public comments submitted 

by others? 

J. May I submit comments regarding sites 

not currently proposed to the NPL? 

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

B. Proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this proposed 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 

proposed 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 proposed rule? 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31466 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’), and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

federal agencies. Under Executive Order 

12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) 

and CERCLA section 120, each federal 

agency is responsible for carrying out 

most response actions at facilities under 

its own jurisdiction, custody or control, 

although the EPA is responsible for 

preparing a Hazard Ranking System 

(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether 

the facility is placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

(40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a 

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and air. As a matter of 

agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

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

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

a single site as its top priority to be 

listed on the NPL, without any HRS 

score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each state as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions. . . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

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

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ The EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31467 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones Company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

The EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

The EPA may delete sites from the 

NPL where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that the EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(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 (formerly called Sitewide 

Ready-for-Reuse) represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

Implementing the Sitewide Ready-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. 

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, will be added to the EPA’s 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31468 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/ 

nplstcor.htm. 

II. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this proposed rule? 

Yes, documents that form the basis for 

the EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the 

sites in this proposed rule are contained 

in public Dockets located both at the 

EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, 

and in the Regional offices. These 

documents are also available by 

electronic access at www.regulations.gov 

(see instructions in the ADDRESSES

section above). 

B. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, in the Headquarters 

or the Regional Dockets after the 

publication of this proposed rule. The 

hours of operation for the Headquarters 

Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday excluding 

federal holidays. Please contact the 

Regional Dockets for hours. 

The following is the contact 

information for the EPA Headquarters 

Docket: Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, CERCLA Docket 

Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 

20004; 202/566–0276. (Please note this 

is a visiting address only. Mail 

comments to the EPA Headquarters as 

detailed at the beginning of this 

preamble.) 

The contact information for the 

relevant 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. 

• 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. 

• 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, 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–9–1, 

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. 

You may also request copies from the 

EPA Headquarters or the Regional 

Dockets. An informal request, rather 

than a formal written request under the 

Freedom of Information Act, should be 

the ordinary procedure for obtaining 

copies of any of these documents. Please 

note that due to the difficulty of 

reproducing oversized maps, oversized 

maps may be viewed only in-person; 

since the EPA dockets are not equipped 

to either copy and mail out such maps 

or scan them and send them out 

electronically. 

You may use the Docket at 

www.regulations.gov to access 

documents in the Headquarters Docket 

(see instructions included in the 

ADDRESSES section above). Please note 

that there are differences between the 

Headquarters Docket and the Regional 

Dockets and those differences are 

outlined below. 

C. What documents are available for 

public review at the Headquarters 

Docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this 

proposed rule contains the following for 

the sites proposed in this rule: HRS 

score sheets; Documentation Records 

describing the information used to 

compute the score; information for any 

sites affected by particular statutory 

requirements or the EPA listing policies; 

and a list of documents referenced in 

the Documentation Record. 

D. What documents are available for 

public review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional Dockets for this 

proposed rule contain all of the 

information in the Headquarters Docket 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon and cited by the EPA in 

calculating or evaluating the HRS score 

for the sites. These reference documents 

are available only in the Regional 

Dockets. 

E. How do I submit my comments? 

Comments must be submitted to the 

EPA Headquarters as detailed at the 

beginning of this preamble in the 

ADDRESSES section. Please note that the 

mailing addresses differ according to 

method of delivery. There are two 

different addresses that depend on 

whether comments are sent by express 

mail or by postal mail. 

F. What happens to my comments? 

The EPA considers all comments 

received during the comment period. 

Significant comments are typically 

addressed in a support document that 

the EPA will publish concurrently with 

the Federal Register document if, and 

when, the site is listed on the NPL. 

G. What should I consider when 

preparing my comments? 

Comments that include complex or 

voluminous reports, or materials 

prepared for purposes other than HRS 

scoring, should point out the specific 

information that the EPA should 

consider and how it affects individual 

HRS factor values or other listing 

criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. 

Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 

1988)). The EPA will not address 

voluminous comments that are not 

referenced to the HRS or other listing 

criteria. The EPA will not address 

comments unless they indicate which 

component of the HRS documentation 

record or what particular point in the 

EPA’s stated eligibility criteria is at 

issue. 

H. May I submit comments after the 

public comment period is over? 

Generally, the EPA will not respond 

to late comments. The EPA can 

guarantee only that it will consider 

those comments postmarked by the 

close of the formal comment period. The 

EPA has a policy of generally not 

delaying a final listing decision solely to 

accommodate consideration of late 

comments. 

I. May I view public comments 

submitted by others? 

During the comment period, 

comments are placed in the 

Headquarters Docket and are available 

to the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. 

A complete set of comments will be 

available for viewing in the Regional 

Dockets approximately one week after 

the formal comment period closes. 

All public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper 

form, will be made available for public 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31469 

viewing in the electronic public Docket 

at www.regulations.gov as the EPA 

receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Once in the public 

Dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then 

key in the appropriate Docket ID 

number. 

J. May I submit comments regarding 

sites not currently proposed to the NPL? 

In certain instances, interested parties 

have written to the EPA concerning sites 

that were not at that time proposed to 

the NPL. If those sites are later proposed 

to the NPL, parties should review their 

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, 

resubmit those concerns for 

consideration during the formal 

comment period. Site-specific 

correspondence received prior to the 

period of formal proposal and comment 

will not generally be included in the 

Docket. 

III. Contents of this proposed rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

In today’s proposed rule, the EPA is 

proposing to add nine sites to the NPL, 

all in the General Superfund section. All 

of the sites in this proposed rulemaking 

are being proposed based on HRS scores 

of 28.50 or above. 

The sites are presented in the table 

below. 

GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

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

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

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

MT Smurfit-Stone Mill .............................................................................................................................................................. Missoula. 

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

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

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

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

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

B. Proposed Site Name Change 

The EPA is proposing to change the 

name of the B.F. Goodrich site in Rialto, 

California, which was added to the NPL 

on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48412). 

The EPA is proposing to change the 

name to Locust Avenue at the request of 

a settling work party. 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 

proposed name informs the public of 

the geographic location of the site. 

Comments may be submitted to docket 

number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574. 

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 proposed 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. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this proposed 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31470 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed rule listing sites on the 

NPL, if promulgated, would not impose 

any obligations on any group, including 

small entities. This proposed rule, if 

promulgated, also would establish no 

standards or requirements that any 

small entity must meet, and would 

impose 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 proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not impose any 

requirements on any small entities. For 

the foregoing reasons, I certify that this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, 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 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 proposed 

rule? 

This proposed 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. Proposing a site on the 

NPL does not itself impose any costs. 

Proposal does not mean that the EPA 

necessarily will undertake remedial 

action. Nor does proposal 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 proposing a site to be placed 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 proposal 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 proposed rule? 

This proposed 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 proposed 

rule. 

The EPA believes, however, that this 

proposed 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 proposed 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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31471 

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 proposed rule? 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Proposing a site to 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 proposed 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 proposed rule? 

This proposed 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 proposed 

rule 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 proposed 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 rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts because 

proposing 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 proposed rule? 

No. This proposed 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 proposed rule? 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: May 17, 2013. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12326 Filed 5–23–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS