Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15901 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 4, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(282)(i)(C)(2) and 

(3) and (c)(284)(i)(A)(5) and 

(c)(308)(i)(E) and (c)(453) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(282) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Rule 204, ‘‘Cancellation of 

Applications,’’ revised on March 21, 

2001. 

(3) Rule 206, ‘‘Standards for Issuing 

Authorities to Construct and Permits to 

Operate,’’ revised on March 21, 2001. 

* * * * * 

(284) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(5) Rule 200, ‘‘Permits Required,’’ 

revised on December 13, 2000. 

* * * * * 

(308) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 203, ‘‘Application,’’ revised 

October 16, 2002. 

(2) Rule 212, ‘‘Public Availability of 

Emission Data,’’ revised on October 16, 

2002. 

* * * * * 

(453) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on May 12, 2011. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 207, ‘‘Review of New or 

Modified Sources,’’ revised on April 20, 

2011. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06705 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0636; FRL–9925–11– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County; Revisions to Emission 

Inventory Requirements, and General 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 2, 2015, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a direct final rule approving 

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo 

County, New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan. These revisions 

add definitions and clarifying changes 

to the general provisions and add a new 

emissions inventory regulation that 

establishes reporting requirements for 

stationary sources in Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County. The direct final rule 

was published without prior proposal 

because EPA anticipated no adverse 

comments. EPA stated in the direct final 

rule that if we received relevant, adverse 

comments by March 4, 2015, EPA 

would publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register. EPA received a 

comment on February 20, 2015 from the 

Sierra Club stating in relevant part, that 

an Acting Regional Administrator 

cannot sign approvals, disapprovals, or 

any combination of approvals or 

disapproval, in whole or in part, due to 

the fact that the authority to act on 

agency actions on state implementation 

plans is delegated only to, and therefore 

can only be signed by, the Regional 

Administrator. EPA considers this a 

relevant, adverse comment and 

accordingly we are withdrawing our 

direct final rule approval, and in a 

separate subsequent final rulemaking 

we will address the comment received. 

The withdrawal is being taken pursuant 

to section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on February 2, 2015 (80 FR 5471), is 

withdrawn effective March 26, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Walser (6PD–L), Air Planning 

Section, telephone (214) 665–7128, fax 

(214) 665–6762, email: walser.john@

epa.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 13, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

Accordingly, the amendments to 40 

CFR 52.1620 published in the Federal 

Register on February 2, 2015 (80 FR 

5471), which were to become effective 

on April 3, 2015, are withdrawn. 

[FR Doc. 2015–06701 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2014–0624, 0625; FRL 

9924–32–OSWER] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule adds two sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL. 

DATES: The document is effective on 

April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters and EPA Region 5 

dockets: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW.; William 

Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566– 

0276. 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What is the NCP? 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of 

sites? 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

I. What is the construction completion list 

(CCL)? 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

K. What is state/tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL listing? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA Region 5 docket? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

federal agencies. Under Executive Order 

12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) 

and CERCLA section 120, each federal 

agency is responsible for carrying out 

most response actions at facilities under 

its own jurisdiction, custody or control, 

although the EPA is responsible for 

preparing a Hazard Ranking System 

(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether 

the facility is placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

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

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and air. As a matter of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15903 

agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

for the NPL. (2) Each state may 

designate a single site as its top priority 

to be listed on the NPL, without any 

HRS score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each state as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

(1) 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. 

(2) The EPA determines that the 

release poses a significant threat to 

public health. 

(3) The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions’’ (40 CFR 300.5). 

However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), 

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not 

imply that monies will be expended.’’ 

The EPA may pursue other appropriate 

authorities to respond to the releases, 

including enforcement action under 

CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones Company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

remedial investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a 

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

the feasibility study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR 

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

The EPA may delete sites from the 

NPL where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that the EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been 

implemented and no further response 

action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

In November 1995, the EPA initiated 

a policy to delete portions of NPL sites 

where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and made available for 

productive use. 

I. What is the construction completion 

list (CCL)? 

The EPA also has developed an NPL 

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to 

simplify its system of categorizing sites 

and to better communicate the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

successful completion of cleanup 

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

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no 

legal significance. 

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) 

Any necessary physical construction is 

complete, whether or not final cleanup 

levels or other requirements have been 

achieved; (2) the EPA has determined 

that the response action should be 

limited to measures that do not involve 

construction (e.g., institutional 

controls); or (3) the site qualifies for 

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

EPA’s Internet site at http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/

ccl.htm. 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

Implementing the Sitewide Ready-forReuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 

9365.0–36. This measure applies to final 

and deleted sites where construction is 

complete, all cleanup goals have been 

achieved, and all institutional or other 

controls are in place. The EPA has been 

successful on many occasions in 

carrying out remedial actions that 

ensure protectiveness of human health 

and the environment for current and 

future land uses, in a manner that 

allows contaminated properties to be 

restored to environmental and economic 

vitality. For further information, please 

go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/pro

grams/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 has improved the 

transparency of the process by which 

state and tribal input is solicited. The 

EPA is using the Web and where 

appropriate more structured state and 

tribal correspondence that (1) explains 

the concerns at the site and the EPA’s 

rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an 

explanation of how the state intends to 

address the site if placement on the NPL 

is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the 

transparent nature of the process by 

informing states that information on 

their responses will be publicly 

available. 

A model letter and correspondence 

between the EPA and states and tribes 

where applicable, is available on the 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/

nplstcor.htm. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at the EPA Headquarters 

and in the EPA Region 5 office. 

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. 

Kokomo Contaminated Ground Water Plume ................................................ Kokomo, IN ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2014– 

0624 

DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar Plant ............................................................... Gibraltar, MI ....................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2014– 

0625 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

The Headquarters docket for this rule 

contains the HRS score sheets, the 

documentation record describing the 

information used to compute the score 

and a list of documents referenced in 

the documentation record for each site. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA Region 5 docket? 

The EPA Region 5 docket contains all 

the information in the Headquarters 

docket, plus the actual reference 

documents containing the data 

principally relied upon by the EPA in 

calculating or evaluating the HRS score. 

These reference documents are available 

only in the Region 5 docket. 

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 Region 5 docket for 

hours. For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Region 5 dockets, see 

‘‘Addresses’’ section in the beginning 

portion of this preamble. 

E. How may I obtain a current list of 

NPL sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at http://www.epa.

gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm or 

by contacting the Superfund docket (see 

contact information in the beginning 

portion of this document). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 

sites to the General Superfund section of 

the NPL. These sites are being added to 

the NPL based on HRS score. 

General Superfund section: 

State Site name City/County 

IN .................................................................................................................... Kokomo Contaminated Ground 

Water Plume.

Kokomo. 

MI .................................................................................................................... DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar Plant .. Gibraltar. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 15905 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

The EPA is adding two sites to the 

NPL in this final rule, both of which 

were proposed for NPL addition on 

September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56538). The 

sites are the Kokomo Contaminated 

Ground Water Plume in Kokomo, 

Indiana, and the DSC McLouth Steel 

Gibraltar Plant in Gibraltar, Michigan. 

The EPA received no comments in 

connection with the Kokomo 

Contaminated Ground Water Plume. It 

received one comment in connection 

with the DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar 

Plant. 

On October 30, 2014, counsel for 

Detroit Steel Company and Gibraltar 

Land Company, the respective owners 

of the DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar 

Plant and the Countywide Landfill, 

commented on the proposed listing. 

Counsel described the comments as 

‘‘not technical in nature’’ and stated that 

the comments were ‘‘submitted in order 

to supplement the record. And provide 

needed background.’’ The comments 

did not challenge the HRS score but did 

provide a substantial site history, which 

includes litigation between Gibraltar 

Land Company (GLC) and the State of 

Michigan arising out of Michigan’s 

denial of GLC’s application for a 

construction permit to expand the 

Countywide Landfill. The commenter 

closed with the following statements, 

‘‘The designation of the properties on 

the National Priorities List would make 

the financing of future landfill 

operations and/or the sale of the 

property to another landfill developer 

difficult. However, recognizing the 

continued areas of environmental 

concern, even if USEPA would elect to 

designate these sites on the NPL at this 

time, we would believe that USEPA 

could play a constructive role in 

attempting to mediate a resolution of 

this matter. Such a resolution would 

provide for the vertical expansion of the 

[Countywide Landfill], which would in 

turn provide a source of revenue that 

would minimize the use of federal 

monies.’’ 

In response, the EPA notes that the 

commenter raised no issue with the 

HRS score. EPA is placing the DSC 

McLouth Steel Gibraltar Plant site on 

the NPL. EPA will coordinate with GLC, 

Michigan, and Wayne County to 

efficiently address the contamination. 

EPA, however, has no authority to 

require Michigan to approve a permit 

for landfill expansion at the Countywide 

Landfill facility. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This rule listing sites on the 

NPL does not impose any obligations on 

any group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Listing a site on the NPL does not itself 

impose any costs. Listing does not mean 

that the EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action. Nor does listing require 

any action by a private party, state, local 

or tribal governments or determine 

liability for response costs. Costs that 

arise out of site responses result from 

future site-specific decisions regarding 

what actions to take, not directly from 

the act of placing a site on the NPL. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not impose any costs on a tribe or 

require a tribe to take remedial action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this action itself is procedural 

in nature (adds sites to a list) and does 

not, in and of itself, provide protection 

from environmental health and safety 

risks. Separate future regulatory actions 

are required for mitigation of 

environmental health and safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

discussed in Section I.C. of the 

preamble to this action, the NPL is a list 

of national priorities. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

15906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 58 / Thursday, March 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance as it does 

not assign liability to any party. Also, 

placing a site on the NPL does not mean 

that any remedial or removal action 

necessarily need be taken. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

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

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 

801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or 

continue in effect, if Congress enacts 

(and the President signs) a joint 

resolution of disapproval, described 

under section 802. Another statutory 

provision that may affect this rule is 

CERCLA section 305, which provides 

for a legislative veto of regulations 

promulgated under CERCLA. Although 

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 

2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the 

University of Washington v. EPA, 86 

F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the 

validity of the legislative veto into 

question, the EPA has transmitted a 

copy of this regulation to the Secretary 

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, the EPA will publish a 

document of clarification in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

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

2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by adding entries for 

‘‘Kokomo Contaminated Ground Water 

Plume’’ and ‘‘DSC McLouth Steel 

Gibraltar Plant’’ in alphabetical order by 

state to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

IN ........................ Kokomo Contaminated Ground Water Plume ....................................... Kokomo 

*******

MI ........................ DSC McLouth Steel Gibraltar Plant ...................................................... Gibraltar 

*******

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater 

than or equal to 28.50). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06696 Filed 3–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51 

[WC Docket No. 10–90, CC Docket No. 01– 

92; DA 15–249] 

Connect America Fund; Developing a 

Unified Intercarrier Compensation 

Regime 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission’s 

Wireline Competition Bureau clarifies 

certain rules related to the 

implementation of the intercarrier 

compensation transition for rate-ofreturn local exchange carriers adopted 

in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 

Specifically, the Bureau clarifies the 

Commission’s rules governing Eligible 

Recovery calculations to address limited 

unanticipated results of the application 

of the true-up process evidenced by the 

rate-of-return carriers’ 2014 annual 

access tariff filings. 

DATES: Effective April 27, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pamela Arluk, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or (202) 418–0484 (TTY); or 

Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or (202) 418–0484 (TTY). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order in 

WC Docket No. 10–90 and CC Docket 

No. 01–92, adopted and released on 

February 24, 2015. The full text of this 

document can be viewed at the 

following Internet address: https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/

DA-15-249A1.docx. The full text of this 

document is also available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (e.g. braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format, etc.) or to request reasonable 

accommodations (e.g. accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

I. Introduction 

1. In the USF/ICC Transformation 

Order, the Commission delegated to the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

the authority to make any rule revisions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES