Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57495 

Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; 

telephone (415) 399–7442 or email at 

D11-PF-MarineEvents@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety 

zone around a fireworks barge during 

the loading, transit, and arrival of the 

fireworks barge to the display location 

and until the start of the fireworks 

display. From 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. on 

October 6, 2012, the fireworks barge will 

be loading pyrotechnics off of Pier 50 in 

position 37°46′28′′ N, 122°23′06′′ W 

(NAD 83). From 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on 

October 6, 2012, the loaded barge will 

transit from Pier 50 to the launch site 

near Pier 3 in approximate position 

37°48′00′′ N, 122°23′27′′ W (NAD83). 

Upon the commencement of the 

fireworks display, scheduled to take 

place from 9:30 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. on 

October 6, 2012, the safety zone will 

increase in size and encompass the 

navigable waters around and under the 

fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 

feet at the launch site near Pier 3 in 

approximate position 37°48′00′′ N, 

122°23′27′′ W (NAD83) for the Fleet 

Week Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191, 

Table 1, item number 25. This safety 

zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. to 

9:50 p.m. on October 6, 2012. Under the 

provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, 

unauthorized persons or vessels are 

prohibited from entering into, transiting 

through, or anchoring in the safety zone 

during all applicable effective dates and 

times, unless authorized to do so by the 

PATCOM. Additionally, each person 

who receives notice of a lawful order or 

direction issued by an official patrol 

vessel shall obey the order or direction. 

The PATCOM is empowered to forbid 

entry into and control the regulated 

area. The PATCOM shall be designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon 

request, allow the transit of commercial 

vessels through regulated areas when it 

is safe to do so. This notice is issued 

under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 

5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this 

notice in the Federal Register, the Coast 

Guard will provide the maritime 

community with extensive advance 

notification of the safety zone and its 

enforcement period via the Local Notice 

to Mariners. 

If the Captain of the Port determines 

that the regulated area need not be 

enforced for the full duration stated in 

this notice, a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners may be used to grant general 

permission to enter the regulated area. 

Dated: August 24, 2012. 

Cynthia L. Stowe, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22922 Filed 9–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0002, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2003–0010, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011– 

0647, 0653, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0146, 

0147, 0062, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0068, 

0070 and 0071; FRL–9722–6] 

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 

55 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘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 12 sites to 

the General Superfund Section of the 

NPL. 

DATES: The effective date for this 

amendment to the NCP is October 18, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW.; EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 

202/566–0276. 

The contact information for the 

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. 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What is the NCP? 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of 

sites? 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

I. What is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What is the sitewide ready for 

anticipated use measure? 

K. What is State/Tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL listing? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

C. Removal of Construction Completion 

List Column Note and Footnote 

Description 

D. Correction of Partial Deletion Notation 

in Table 1 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57496 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What is Executive Order 12866? 

2. Is this final rule subject to Executive 

Order 12866 review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this final rule? 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How has the EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this final rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this final rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this final rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Usage 

1. What Is Executive Order 13211? 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this final rule? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act apply to this final 

rule? 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

1. What Is Executive Order 12898? 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this final rule? 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

2. Could the effective date of this final rule 

change? 

3. What could cause a change in the 

effective date of this rule? 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR Part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

federal agencies. Under Executive Order 

12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) 

and CERCLA section 120, each federal 

agency is responsible for carrying out 

most response actions at facilities under 

its own jurisdiction, custody or control, 

although the EPA is responsible for 

preparing a Hazard Ranking System 

(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether 

the facility is placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

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

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and air. As a matter of 

agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

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

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

a single site as its top priority to be 

listed on the NPL, without any HRS 

score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each state as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57497 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

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

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ The EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

The EPA may delete sites from the 

NPL where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that the EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been 

implemented and no further response 

action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

In November 1995, the EPA initiated 

a policy to delete portions of NPL sites 

where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and made available for 

productive use. 

I. What is the construction completion 

list (CCL)? 

The EPA also has developed an NPL 

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to 

simplify its system of categorizing sites 

and to better communicate the 

successful completion of cleanup 

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

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no 

legal significance. 

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) 

Any necessary physical construction is 

complete, whether or not final cleanup 

levels or other requirements have been 

achieved; (2) the EPA has determined 

that the response action should be 

limited to measures that do not involve 

construction (e.g., institutional 

controls); or (3) the site qualifies for 

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

EPA’s Internet site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ 

ccl.htm. 

J. What is the sitewide ready for 

anticipated use measure? 

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57498 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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/ 

superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/ 

nplstcor.htm. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at the EPA Headquarters 

and in the Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for Docket Identification numbers). 

Although not all Docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

Docket materials through the Docket 

facilities identified below in section II 

D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Alabama Plating Company, Inc. ............................................................. Vincent, AL ..................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0002 

Cedar Chemical Corporation .................................................................. West Helena, AR ........................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0062 

Fairfax St. Wood Treaters ...................................................................... Jacksonville, FL ............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0063 

Bautsch-Gray Mine ................................................................................. Galena, IL ...................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0065 

EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company .............................. Jennings, LA .................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0066 

Leeds Metal ............................................................................................ Leeds, ME ...................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0647 

Holcomb Creosote Co ............................................................................ Yadkinville, NC ............................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0067 

Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination ......................... West Orange/Orange, NJ .............. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0068 

Peters Cartridge Factory ......................................................................... Kings Mills, OH .............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2003–0010 

West Troy Contaminated Aquifer ........................................................... Troy, OH ........................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0070 

Circle Court Ground Water Plume .......................................................... Willow Park, TX ............................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0071 

US Oil Recovery ..................................................................................... Pasadena, TX ................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2011–0653 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the Headquarters Docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or the EPA listing policies 

that affect the site and a list of 

documents referenced in the 

Documentation Record. For sites that 

received comments during the comment 

period, the Headquarters Docket also 

contains a Support Document that 

includes the EPA’s responses to 

comments. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional Dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters Docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by the EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional Dockets. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Regional Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes the 

EPA’s responses to comments. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding federal holidays. 

Please contact the Regional Dockets for 

hours. For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Regional Dockets, see 

ADDRESSES section in the beginning 

portion of this preamble. 

E. How may I obtain a current list of 

NPL sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at http:// 

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

index.htm or by contacting the 

Superfund Docket (see contact 

information in the beginning portion of 

this notice). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 12 

sites to the NPL, all to the General 

Superfund Section. All of the sites 

included in this final rulemaking are 

being added to the NPL based on HRS 

scores of 28.50 or above with the 

exception of Cedar Chemical 

Corporation, which has been designated 

as the state’s one-time top priority site. 

The sites are presented in the table 

below: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57499 

State Site name City/county 

AL ...... Alabama Plating Company, Inc. ........................................................................................... Vincent 

AR ..... Cedar Chemical Corporation ................................................................................................ West Helena 

FL ...... Fairfax St. Wood Treaters .................................................................................................... Jacksonville 

IL ....... Bautsch-Gray Mine ............................................................................................................... Galena 

LA ...... EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company ........................................................... Jennings 

ME ..... Leeds Metal .......................................................................................................................... Leeds 

NC ..... Holcomb Creosote Co .......................................................................................................... Yadkinville 

NJ ...... Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination ....................................................... West Orange/Orange 

OH ..... Peters Cartridge Factory ...................................................................................................... Kings Mills 

OH ..... West Troy Contaminated Aquifer ......................................................................................... Troy 

TX ...... Circle Court Ground Water Plume ....................................................................................... Willow Park 

TX ...... US Oil Recovery ................................................................................................................... Pasadena 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

The EPA reviewed all comments 

received on the sites in this rule and 

responded to all relevant comments. 

This rule adds 12 sites to the NPL. 

The EPA received two comments 

relating to all sites proposed for NPL 

addition in the March 2012 NPL 

proposed rule (77 FR 15344, March 15, 

2012). One commenter approved of 

listing sites on the NPL but urged the 

EPA to develop a more reasoned and 

significant HRS score threshold for 

listing sites (see docket number EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2012–0071–0005). The 

commenter questioned whether the EPA 

can protect human health and the 

environment without a ‘‘reasoned 

threshold for remediation’’ and whether 

28.50 is the ‘‘exact point where risk 

becomes too great for the government to 

allow the contamination to continue.’’ 

The commenter expressed that she was 

unable to locate any resource indicating 

the rationale of the 28.50 threshold, 

then cited in part the EPA’s rationale 

from the 1990 revisions to the HRS at 

55 FR 51569. The commenter 

questioned whether the rationale is still 

valid given that 220 sites currently on 

the Superfund list (16.9% of the total 

listed sites) fall within 5 points of the 

28.50 cutoff. 

In response, the commenter is 

incorrect that the 28.50 cutoff score is 

intended as a ‘‘reasoned threshold for 

remediation’’ and is incorrect in stating 

that the 28.50 cutoff score is intended as 

‘‘the exact point where risk becomes too 

great to allow contamination to 

continue.’’ It is neither. The EPA’s 

rationale for retaining the 28.50 cutoff 

score is addressed in the preamble to 

the 1990 revisions to the HRS (55 FR 

51569, December 14, 1990). There, after 

requesting public comments on the 

issue, the Agency stated: 

EPA believes that the cutoff score has been, 

and should continue to be, a mechanism that 

allows it to make objective decisions on 

national priorities. Because the HRS is 

intended to be a screening system, the 

Agency has never attached significance to the 

cutoff score as an indicator of a specific level 

of risk from a site, nor has the Agency 

intended the cutoff to reflect a point below 

which no risk was present. The score of 28.50 

is not meant to imply that risky and nonrisky sites can be precisely distinguished. 

Nevertheless, the cutoff score has been a 

useful screening tool that has allowed the 

Agency to set priorities and to move forward 

with studying and, where appropriate, 

cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The vast 

majority of sites scoring above 28.50 in the 

past have been shown to present risks. EPA 

believes that a cutoff score of 28.50 will 

continue to serve this crucial function. 

An HRS evaluation is not a risk 

assessment and is not a decision to 

remediate a specific site. Remediation 

decisions are made later in the 

Superfund process after additional 

investigation. The HRS is intended to be 

a ‘‘rough list’’ of prioritized hazardous 

sites; a ‘‘first step in a process—nothing 

more, nothing less’’ Eagle Picher Indus. 

v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 

1985) (Eagle Picher II). The EPA would 

like to investigate each possible site 

completely and thoroughly prior to 

evaluating them for proposal for NPL, 

but it must reconcile the need for 

certainty before action with the need for 

inexpensive, expeditious procedures to 

identify potentially hazardous sites. The 

courts have found the EPA’s approach 

to solving this conundrum to be 

‘‘reasonable and fully in accord with 

Congressional intent’’ Eagle Picher 

Industries, Inc. v. EPA, (759 F.2d 905 

(D.C. Cir. 1985) Eagle Picher I). When 

scoring sites during an HRS evaluation, 

the EPA does not score multiple 

pathways when scoring an additional 

pathway will not affect the listing 

decision, even though it might add to a 

site score. Therefore, the HRS score 

represents a threshold score—sites that 

score within 5 points could actually 

score significantly higher if additional 

pathways were investigated; thus, the 

commenter’s basis for claiming that the 

rationale is no longer valid is flawed. 

This rulemaking adds specific sites to 

the NPL and does not propose to change 

the process for determining the 

eligibility of sites for the NPL. This 

comment, which supports the 

placement of the sites to the NPL, 

results in no change to the HRS scores 

of the sites at issue and no change in the 

decision to place them on the NPL. 

The second commenter stated that the 

EPA should have provided additional 

information as to why these sites were 

being listed, and that this lack of 

information was inconsistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’) 

(see docket number EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2012–0071–0006). In particular, the 

commenter questions the adequacy of 

the Narrative Summary for each 

proposed site. The commenter states 

that the Narrative Summaries should 

provide more discussion of the rationale 

and purpose of listing a site; more 

discussion of alternatives to listing; and 

more opportunity for notice and 

comment as required by the APA. The 

commenter requests re-proposal of the 

sites in accordance with their request 

for additional information. 

In response, the Agency notes that the 

commenter submitted similar comments 

to a NPL rulemaking in 2008 (see 

document number EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2008–0081–0005). The Agency reaffirms 

its response to those comments in 2008 

and continues to hold that its process 

for adding sites to the NPL complies 

with the APA and CERCLA. As stated in 

2008, for prospective sites under 

consideration for listing on the NPL, the 

EPA follows NCP procedures by 

conducting a preliminary assessment 

(PA) report of the site. Depending on the 

results, that may be followed up by a 

site inspection report (SI), which 

involves gathering more information 

about the site by contacting the state 

and interested parties on and around the 

site. When a site is proposed to the NPL, 

the EPA provides its detailed rationale 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

in documents (i.e., the HRS 

documentation record and supporting 

materials) publicly available at the EPA 

Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the 

Regional offices, and by electronic 

access at htpp://www.regulations.gov. If 

the site is affected by any particular 

statutory requirements or the EPA 

listing policies, such requirements or 

policies are discussed and included in 

the docket materials for each site, which 

are made available for public review 

and comment. Commenters have the 

opportunity to raise any comments they 

may have on the proposed listing, 

supporting documentation, and 

rationale (typically over a 60-day 

comment period). In kind, the EPA 

responds to such comments in writing 

before making a final decision to place 

a site on the NPL. 

Section 553 of the APA authorizes 

‘‘informal’’ rulemaking, which 

encourages and relies on the 

participation of the public, including 

potentially responsible parties. The 

process outlined in the paragraph above 

clearly complies with informal 

rulemaking under the APA. The 

commenter mistakenly argues that the 

EPA should put the basis or rationale for 

its listing decision in the Narrative 

Summary in the Federal Register. The 

detailed rationale and additional 

information the commenter seeks, 

however, is in the HRS documentation 

record itself. The EPA believes that the 

Federal Register notice and the 

documentation record give the notice 

required by the APA. The commenter 

does not explain why the APA requires 

the Narrative Summary to be published 

in the Federal Register. The HRS 

codifies or implements the criteria the 

EPA considers pursuant to CERCLA 

§ 105(a)(8)(A) when placing a site on the 

NPL. As discussed above, courts have 

found the EPA’s approach reasonable 

and consistent with congressional 

intent. 

Finally, while the commenter has 

made general assertions that the 

information presented at proposal for 

the sites was inadequate, the commenter 

has not explained why the information 

provided was not adequate to list the 

sites or any specific site. The 

commenter requests re-proposal of the 

sites but fails to specify or explain the 

inadequacies of the HRS documentation 

record of each site, and fails to provide 

any information the Agency should 

consider. As the commenter itself states: 

‘‘Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking 

Must Be a Dialogue.’’ Courts, however, 

have held that the ‘‘dialogue between 

administrative agencies and the public 

is a two-way street.’’ Northside Sanitary 

Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516, 

1520 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Home Box 

Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 

1977)). The commenter ‘‘cannot merely 

state that a particular mistake was 

made,’’ rather it must show ‘‘why the 

mistake was of possible significance in 

the result the agency reaches.’’ See id. 

at 1519. In this case, the commenter has 

not explained what other information 

the Agency needs to consider or why 

the information the Agency has 

considered is not sufficient to place the 

sites on the NPL. 

This rulemaking adds specific sites to 

the NPL and does not propose to change 

the process for determining the 

eligibility of sites for the NPL. This 

comment results in no change to the 

HRS scores of the sites presented and no 

change in the decision to place them on 

the NPL. 

Other than these two general 

comments, the EPA received no 

additional comments on seven sites 

included in the March 2012 proposal 

and so the EPA is including them in this 

final rule. Those sites are Fairfax St. 

Wood Treaters (Jacksonville, FL), 

Holcomb Creosote Co (Yadkinville, NC), 

Bautsch-Gray Mine (Galena, IL), West 

Troy Contaminated Aquifer (Troy, OH), 

Cedar Chemical Corporation (West 

Helena, AR), EVR-Wood Treating/ 

Evangeline Refining Company 

(Jennings, LA) and Circle Court Ground 

Water Plume (Willow Park, TX). 

For the Orange Valley Regional 

Ground Water Contamination site (West 

Orange/Orange, NJ), the EPA also 

received a comment supporting listing 

of the site, and providing additional 

sampling data which the commenter 

stated demonstrated an even greater risk 

at the site than indicated by the 

proposed score. In response, the EPA is 

adding the site to the NPL, as the 

commenter advocates, and will consider 

the data provided as it performs the RI/ 

FS to more fully assess the 

contamination and develop cleanup 

options, if deemed necessary. 

Four sites in this rule received sitespecific comments that are addressed in 

response to comments support 

documents placed in the docket and 

accompanying the release of this rule. 

These four sites are Leeds Metal (Leeds, 

ME), Alabama Plating Company, Inc. 

(Vincent, AL), Peters Cartridge Factory 

(Kings Mills, OH) and US Oil Recovery 

(Pasadena, TX). 

C. Removal of Construction Completion 

List Column Note and Footnote 

Description 

The EPA received no comments on its 

March 15, 2012 proposal to remove the 

Construction Completion List column 

note and footnote description (77 FR 

15344, Docket # EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2012–0146). This final rule amends the 

notes column and footnote description 

of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 300 to 

remove the note that references ‘‘sites 

on the construction completion list.’’ 

The EPA developed the Construction 

Completion List (CCL) (58 FR 12142, 

March 2, 1993) ‘‘to simplify its system 

of categorizing sites and to better 

communicate the successful completion 

of cleanup activities.’’ Notes were added 

to Table 1 (General Superfund Section) 

and Table 2 (Federal Facilities Section) 

of the NPL to identify those sites on the 

CCL. With today’s easy public 

accessibility to the Internet and the 

availability of the most current data on 

the EPA’s Web site, the EPA is removing 

the construction completion list note. 

For information on the construction 

completion list, please visit the EPA’s 

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

superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm. 

D. Correction of Partial Deletion 

Notation in Table 1 

The EPA received no comments on its 

March 15, 2012 proposal to correct the 

partial deletion notation in Table 1 (77 

FR 15344, Docket # EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2012–0147). Therefore, this final rule 

corrects an error in the column note 

symbol used to designate sites with 

partial deletions in Appendix B to CFR 

Part 300. The correct column note 

symbol for a site with a partial deletion 

is ‘‘P’’. The Mouat Industries site in 

Montana has its partial deletion 

incorrectly designated by a column note 

symbol of ‘‘* * *P’’. In addition, this 

incorrect symbol was erroneously added 

to the footnote descriptions at the end 

of Table 1 as ‘‘* * *P = Sites with 

deletion(s)’’. The EPA is correcting the 

column note for the Mouat Industries 

site by changing it to ‘‘P’’ and is 

removing the erroneous footnote 

description. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57501 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

2. Is this Final Rule subject to Executive 

Order 12866 review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

apply to this Final Rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain or disclose 

or provide information to or for a federal 

agency. This includes the time needed 

to review instructions; develop, acquire, 

install and utilize technology and 

systems for the purposes of collecting, 

validating and verifying information, 

processing and maintaining information 

and disclosing and providing 

information; adjust the existing ways to 

comply with any previously applicable 

instructions and requirements; train 

personnel to be able to respond to a 

collection of information; search data 

sources; complete and review the 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. How has the EPA complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on state, local 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

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

rules with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by state, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before the EPA 

promulgates a rule where a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before the EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of the EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates and 

informing, educating and advising small 

governments on compliance with the 

regulatory requirements. 

2. Does UMRA apply to this Final Rule? 

This final rule does not contain a 

federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not itself impose any costs. Listing 

does not mean that the EPA necessarily 

will undertake remedial action. Nor 

does listing require any action by a 

private party or determine liability for 

response costs. Costs that arise out of 

site responses result from site-specific 

decisions regarding what actions to take, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57502 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

not directly from the act of placing a site 

on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As is 

mentioned above, site listing does not 

impose any costs and would not require 

any action of a small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What is Executive Order 13132? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by state 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ are defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to 

this Final Rule? 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it does 

not contain any requirements applicable 

to states or other levels of government. 

Thus, the requirements of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this final rule. 

The EPA believes, however, that this 

final rule may be of significant interest 

to state governments. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA 

therefore consulted with state officials 

and/or representatives of state 

governments early in the process of 

developing the rule to permit them to 

have meaningful and timely input into 

its development. All sites included in 

this final rule were referred to the EPA 

by states for listing. For all sites in this 

rule, the EPA received letters of support 

either from the governor or a state 

official who was delegated the authority 

by the governor to speak on their behalf 

regarding NPL listing decisions. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to 

this Final Rule? 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Listing a site on the NPL does not 

impose any costs on a tribe or require 

a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to 

this Final Rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this section 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Usage 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), requires federal agencies to 

prepare a ‘‘Statement of Energy Effects’’ 

when undertaking certain regulatory 

actions. A Statement of Energy Effects 

describes the adverse effects of a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ on energy 

supply, distribution and use, reasonable 

alternatives to the action and the 

expected effects of the alternatives on 

energy supply, distribution and use. 

2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to 

this Final Rule? 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

Further, the agency has concluded that 

this final rule is not likely to have any 

adverse energy impacts because adding 

a site to the NPL does not require an 

entity to conduct any action that would 

require energy use, let alone that which 

would significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution or usage. Thus, 

Executive Order 13211 does not apply 

to this action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 

this Final Rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 57503 

did not consider the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to 

this Final Rule? 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. As this rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty upon state, 

tribal or local governments, this rule 

will neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA has 

submitted a report containing this rule 

and other required information to the 

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

Representatives and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ cannot take 

effect until 60 days after it is published 

in the Federal Register. This rule is not 

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

804(2). 

2. Could the effective date of this Final 

Rule change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

The EPA has submitted a report under 

the CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. NPL listing 

is not a major rule because, by itself, 

imposes no monetary costs on any 

person. It establishes no enforceable 

duties, does not establish that the EPA 

necessarily will undertake remedial 

action, nor does it require any action by 

any party or determine liability for site 

response costs. Costs that arise out of 

site responses result from site-by-site 

decisions about what actions to take, not 

directly from the act of listing itself. 

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

the effective date of major rules after 

this report is submitted. 

3. What could cause a change in the 

effective date of this Rule? 

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

not take effect, or continue in effect, if 

Congress enacts (and the President 

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, 

described under section 802. 

Another statutory provision that may 

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, 

which provides for a legislative veto of 

regulations promulgated under 

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 

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

of Regents of the University of 

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

(DC 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: September 10, 2012. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

40 CFR Part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Amend Appendix B of Part 300: 

■ a. In Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 

300 by: 

■ 1. Adding entries for Alabama Plating 

Company, Inc., Cedar Chemical 

Corporation, Fairfax St. Wood Treaters, 

Bautsch-Gray Mine, EVR-Wood 

Treating/Evangeline Refining Company, 

Leeds Metal, Holcomb Creosote Co, 

Orange Valley Regional Ground Water 

Contamination, Peters Cartridge Factory, 

West Troy Contaminated Aquifer, Circle 

Court Ground Water Plume and US Oil 

Recovery in alphabetical order by state; 

■ 2. Removing the column note symbol 

‘‘***P’’ in the Notes (a) column for the 

entry for the Mouat Industries site (MT) 

and adding a ‘‘P’’ symbol in its place; 

■ 3. Removing the footnote ‘‘***P = 

Sites with deletions(s)’’; and 

■ 4. Removing ‘‘C’’ from the Notes(a)

column wherever it appears (174 times). 

■ b. In Tables 1 and 2 by removing the 

footnote ‘‘C=Sites on construction 

completion list.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

*******

AL ........ Alabama Plating Company, Inc. .................................................................................................. Vincent.

* * * * * * * 

AR ........ Cedar Chemical Corporation ....................................................................................................... West Helena ............... S 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

57504 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

*******

FL ........ Fairfax St. Wood Treaters ............................................................................................................ Jacksonville.

* * * * * * * 

IL .......... Bautsch-Gray Mine ...................................................................................................................... Galena.

* * * * * * * 

LA ........ EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company ................................................................... Jennings.

* * * * * * * 

ME ....... Leeds Metal .................................................................................................................................. Leeds.

* * * * * * * 

NC ....... Holcomb Creosote Co .................................................................................................................. Yadkinville.

* * * * * * * 

NJ ........ Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination ............................................................... West Orange/Orange.

* * * * * * * 

OH ....... Peters Cartridge Factory .............................................................................................................. Kings Mills.

* * * * * * * 

OH ....... West Troy Contaminated Aquifer ................................................................................................. Troy.

* * * * * * * 

TX ........ Circle Court Ground Water Plume ............................................................................................... Willow Park.

* * * * * * * 

TX ........ US Oil Recovery .......................................................................................................................... Pasadena.

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

28.50). 

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

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–22851 Filed 9–17–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WC Docket No. 05–25; RM–10593; FCC 12– 

92] 

Special Access for Price Cap Local 

Exchange Carriers; AT&T Corporation 

Petition for Rulemaking To Reform 

Regulation of Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carrier Rates for Interstate 

Special Access Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this Report and Order, the 

Commission suspends, on an interim 

basis, the Commission’s rules allowing 

for automatic pricing flexibility grants 

for special access services, pending 

adoption of new rules. The Commission 

suspends its pricing flexibility rules in 

light of evidence that the proxies for 

measuring actual and potential special 

access market competition, which are 

based on collocation by competitive 

carriers within a Metropolitan Statistical 

Area (MSA), do not accurately predict 

whether competition is sufficient to 

constrain special access prices and deter 

anticompetitive practices by price cap 

local exchange carriers. In the Report 

and Order, the Commission also 

initiates a process to obtain data needed 

to conduct a special access market 

analysis. Based on this forthcoming data 

collection, the Commission will 

undertake a robust special access market 

analysis to determine the extent to 

which the special access market is 

competitive and develop special access 

pricing flexibility rules to replace the 

collocation-based competitive showings. 

DATES: Effective October 18, 2012, 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Susskind, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202) 

418–1520 or (202) 418–0484 (TTY), or 

via email at Jamie.Susskind@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in WC Docket No. 05–25, 

RM–10593, FCC 12–92, adopted on 

August 15, 2012 and released on August 

22, 2012. The summary is based on the 

public redacted version of the 

document, the full text of which is 

available electronically via the 

Electronic Comment Filing System at 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or may be 

downloaded at http://transition.fcc.gov/ 

Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/ 

db0823/FCC-12-92A1.pdf. The full text 

of this document is also available for 

public inspection during regular 

business hours in the Commission’s 

Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., 

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

The complete text may be purchased 

from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request 

alternate formats for persons with 

disabilities (e.g. Braille, large print, 

electronic files, audio format, etc.) or 

reasonable accommodations for filing 

comments (e.g. accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CARTS, etc.), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) or 

(202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Report and Order, we 

suspend, on an interim basis, our rules 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES