48412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Soybean, hay ............................ 8.0 

Soybean, seed .......................... 0.20 

Tomato ...................................... 0.10 

Vegetable, foliage of legume, 

subgroup 7A, except soybean ...................................... 15.0 

Vegetable, legume, group 6 ..... 0.30 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Asparagus ................................. 0.10 

Beet, sugar, molasses .............. 2.0 

Beet, sugar, roots ..................... 0.5 

Beet, sugar, tops ...................... 15.0 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ............................... 0.60 

Cattle, fat .................................. 0.02 

Cattle, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Cattle, liver ................................ 0.05 

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.02 

Cattle, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Corn, field, grain ....................... 0.10 

Corn, field, forage ..................... 6.0 

Corn, field, stover ..................... 6.0 

Corn, pop, grain ........................ 0.10 

Corn, pop, stover ...................... 6.0 

Corn, sweet, forage .................. 6.0 

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob 

with husks removed .............. 0.10 

Corn, sweet, stover .................. 6.0 

Cotton, gin byproducts ............. 4.0 

Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.10 

Egg ........................................... 0.02 

Garlic, bulb ............................... 0.10 

Grain, aspirated fractions ......... 0.70 

Goat, fat .................................... 0.02 

Goat, kidney ............................. 0.20 

Goat, liver ................................. 0.05 

Goat, meat ................................ 0.02 

Goat, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Grass, forage ............................ 10.0 

Grass, hay ................................ 0.20 

Horse, fat .................................. 0.02 

Horse, kidney ............................ 0.20 

Horse, liver ............................... 0.05 

Horse, meat .............................. 0.02 

Horse, meat byproducts, except 

kidney and liver ..................... 0.04 

Leaf petioles, subgroup 4B ...... 0.10 

Milk ........................................... 0.02 

Onion, bulb ............................... 0.10 

Onion, green ............................. 2.0 

Peanut ...................................... 0.20 

Peanut, hay .............................. 20.0 

Peanut, meal ............................ 0.40 

Poultry, fat ................................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat ............................ 0.02 

Poultry, meat byproducts .......... 0.05 

Pumpkin .................................... 0.10 

Safflower, seed ......................... 0.10 

Shallot, bulb .............................. 0.10 

Sheep, fat ................................. 0.02 

Sheep, kidney ........................... 0.20 

Sheep, liver ............................... 0.05 

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.02 

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney and liver ............. 0.04 

Sorghum, grain, forage ............. 1.0 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Sorghum, grain, grain ............... 0.3 

Sorghum, grain, stover ............. 4.0 

Soybean, forage ....................... 5.0 

Soybean, hay ............................ 8.0 

Soybean, seed .......................... 0.20 

Spinach ..................................... 0.50 

Squash, winter .......................... 0.10 

Sunflower, seed ........................ 0.50 

Sunflower, meal ........................ 1.0 

Tomato, paste ........................... 0.30 

Vegetable, foliage of legume, 

except soybean, subgroup 

7A .......................................... 15.0 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except tabasco pepper ............. 0.10 

Vegetable, legume, group 6 ..... 0.30 

Vegetable, root, except sugar 

beet, subgroup 1B ................ 0.30 

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, 

subgroup 1C ......................... 0.20 

* * * * * 

(d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. 

(1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Animal feed, nongrass, group 

18 .......................................... 1.0 

Barley, grain ............................. 0.10 

Barley, hay ................................ 0.80 

Barley, straw ............................. 0.80 

Buckwheat, grain ...................... 0.10 

Millet, forage ............................. 0.50 

Millet, grain ............................... 0.10 

Millet, hay ................................. 0.80 

Millet, straw ............................... 0.80 

Oat, forage ................................ 0.50 

Oat, grain .................................. 0.10 

Oat, hay .................................... 0.80 

Oat, straw ................................. 0.80 

Rice, grain ................................ 0.10 

Rye, forage ............................... 0.50 

Rye, grain ................................. 0.10 

Rye, straw ................................. 0.80 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.50 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.10 

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.80 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.80 

(2) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Animal feed, nongrass, group 

18 .......................................... 1.0 

Barley, grain ............................. 0.10 

Barley, hay ................................ 0.50 

Barley, straw ............................. 0.50 

Buckwheat, grain ...................... 0.10 

Millet, forage ............................. 0.50 

Millet, grain ............................... 0.10 

Millet, hay ................................. 0.50 

Millet, straw ............................... 0.50 

Oat, forage ................................ 0.50 

Oat, grain .................................. 0.10 

Oat, hay .................................... 0.50 

Oat, straw ................................. 0.50 

Rice, grain ................................ 0.10 

Rye, forage ............................... 0.50 

Rye, grain ................................. 0.10 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

Rye, straw ................................. 0.50 

Wheat, forage ........................... 0.50 

Wheat, grain ............................. 0.10 

Wheat, hay ............................... 0.50 

Wheat, straw ............................. 0.50 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 180.511 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and 

adding the following commodity to the 

table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.511 Buprofezin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Guava ....................................... 0.3 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 180.572 is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Guave’’ and 

adding the following commodity to the 

table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 180.572 Bifenazate; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Guava ....................................... 0.9 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–22919 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0071, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0074, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0075, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2009–0068, EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2009–0069, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0579, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0072, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2009–0064, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0073, EPA–HQ–SFUND–1997–0009; FRL– 

8961–3] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 

47 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48413 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

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

be appropriate. This rule adds 11 sites 

to the NPL, all to the General Superfund 

Section. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

for this amendment to the NCP is 

October 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 

well as further details on what these 

dockets contain, see section II, 

‘‘Availability of Information to the 

Public’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

e-mail: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch; Assessment and Remediation 

Division; Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (mail code 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 EPA Delete Portions of Sites From 

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

I. What Is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant 

to This Final Rule? 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL 

Sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. Site Name Change 

C. What did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

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 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. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable 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 

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 

13211? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What Is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act Apply to This 

Final Rule? 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

1. What Is Executive Order 12898? 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

3. What Could Cause a Change in the 

Effective Date of This Rule? 

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What Is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What Is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide EPA in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’), and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody, or control, although EPA is 

responsible for preparing a Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and 

determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which EPA promulgated as 

appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 

300). The HRS serves as a screening tool 

to evaluate the relative potential of 

uncontrolled hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants to pose a 

threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions 

to the HRS partly in response to 

CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure, and air. As a matter of 

Agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

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

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

a single site as its top priority to be 

listed on the NPL, without any HRS 

score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each State as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• EPA anticipates that it will be more 

cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions * * *.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

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

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries 

of Sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48415 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the Agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How Are Sites Removed From the 

NPL? 

EPA may delete sites from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been 

implemented and no further response 

action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites 

From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

In November 1995, EPA initiated a 

new policy to delete portions of NPL 

sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and made available for 

productive use. 

I. What Is the Construction Completion 

List (CCL)? 

EPA also has developed an NPL 

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to 

simplify its system of categorizing sites 

and to better communicate the 

successful completion of cleanup 

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

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no 

legal significance. 

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) 

Any necessary physical construction is 

complete, whether or not final cleanup 

levels or other requirements have been 

achieved; (2) EPA has determined that 

the response action should be limited to 

measures that do not involve 

construction (e.g., institutional 

controls); or (3) the site qualifies for 

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

EPA’s Internet site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ 

ccl.htm. 

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure (formerly called Sitewide 

Ready-for-Reuse) represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

measure reflects the high priority EPA 

places on considering anticipated future 

land use as part of our remedy selection 

process. See Guidance for Implementing 

the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, 

May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This 

measure applies to final and deleted 

sites where construction is complete, all 

cleanup goals have been achieved, and 

all institutional or other controls are in 

place. EPA has been successful on many 

occasions in carrying out remedial 

actions that ensure protectiveness of 

human health and the environment, 

including current and future land users, 

in a manner that allows contaminated 

properties to be restored to 

environmental and economic vitality 

while ensuring protectiveness for 

current and future land users. For 

further information, please go to 

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

programs/recycle/tools/index.html. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I Review the Documents 

Relevant to This Final Rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at EPA Headquarters and in 

the Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

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. 

Site name City/county, state FDMS Docket ID No. 

B.F. Goodrich ............................................................... Rialto, CA .................................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0574 

Lane Street Ground Water Contamination .................. Elkhart, IN ................................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0071 

Southwest Jefferson County Mining ............................ Jefferson County, MO ................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0074 

Flat Creek IMM ............................................................ Superior, MT ............................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0075 

Ore Knob Mine ............................................................. Ashe County, NC ........................................................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0068 

GMH Electronics .......................................................... Roxboro, NC ............................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0069 

Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. ....................................... Milford, NJ ................................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0579 

Little Scioto River ......................................................... Marion County, OH ..................................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0072 

Salford Quarry .............................................................. Lower Salford Township, PA ...................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–1997–0009 

Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. ...................................... Utuado, PR .................................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0064 

Amcast Industrial Corporation ..................................... Cedarburg, WI ............................................................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0073 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or EPA listing policies that 

affect the site, and a list of documents 

referenced in the Documentation 

Record. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Headquarters Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional Dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters Docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48416 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Regional Dockets. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Regional Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 

Please contact the Regional Dockets for 

hours. 

Following is the contact information 

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket 

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 

202/566–0276. 

The contact information for the 

Regional Dockets is as follows: 

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

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

Records and Information Center, 

Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023; 

617/918–1417. 

Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, 

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

York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4343. 

Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 

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

Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 

3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 

814–5364. 

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

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

Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8862. 

Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, 

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

Center, Superfund Division SMR–7J, 

Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 

312/353–5821. 

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

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

Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665– 

7436. 

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

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

Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, 

KS 66101; 913/551–7335. 

Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312– 

6463. 

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

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

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–9–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972– 

3219. 

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

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

Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 

98101; 206/463–1349. 

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/ (look under 

the Superfund sites category) or by 

contacting the Superfund Docket (see 

contact information above). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 11 

sites to the NPL, all to the General 

Superfund Section. The sites are 

presented in the table below: 

State Site name City/county 

CA .............................. B.F. Goodrich ......................................................................................................................... Rialto. 

IN ................................ Lane Street Ground Water Contamination ............................................................................ Elkhart. 

MO ............................. Southwest Jefferson County Mining ...................................................................................... Jefferson County. 

MT .............................. Flat Creek IMM ...................................................................................................................... Superior. 

NC .............................. Ore Knob Mine ....................................................................................................................... Ashe County. 

NC .............................. GMH Electronics .................................................................................................................... Roxboro. 

NJ ............................... Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. .................................................................................................. Milford. 

OH .............................. Little Scioto River ................................................................................................................... Marion County. 

PA .............................. Salford Quarry ........................................................................................................................ Lower Salford Township. 

PR .............................. Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. ................................................................................................ Utuado. 

WI ............................... Amcast Industrial Corporation ................................................................................................ Cedarburg. 

B. Site Name Change 

The Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc. site 

in Milford, New Jersey, was proposed to 

the NPL under a different name. The 

former name was Curtis Papers, Inc. (see 

Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393, 

September 3, 2008). EPA believes the 

new name, Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc., 

more accurately identifies the site. 

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

EPA reviewed all comments received 

on the sites in this rule and responded 

to all relevant comments. 

Eleven sites are being finalized in this 

rule. EPA received adverse comments 

related to the HRS scoring of two sites: 

B.F Goodrich and Curtis Specialty 

Papers, Inc. The comments, EPA’s 

responses to the comments, and the 

impacts, if any, on the HRS scores, are 

presented in support documents 

responding to the comments for each of 

the two sites. These support documents 

are being placed in the Headquarters 

and regional dockets concurrently with 

the publication of this rule. 

EPA received non-HRS comments for 

three sites. For two of these sites, 

Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. and 

Amcast Industrial Corporation, 

commenters requested extensions of the 

comment period in order to have more 

review time and discuss voluntary 

cleanup options (Papelera 

Puertorriquena, Inc.) and in order to 

complete due diligence and purchase 

negotiations (Amcast Industrial 

Corporation). EPA denied both 

extension requests. There were no errors 

in the materials available during the 

comment period in either docket, and 

therefore, the commenters had adequate 

opportunity to comment upon the 

proposed listing and the underlying 

record for the listings. Moreover, EPA is 

finalizing the sites because EPA, Puerto 

Rico and Wisconsin believe listing is the 

most effective way of obtaining site 

cleanup. This action should not 

interfere with a voluntary cleanup at 

Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc. EPA notes 

that potentially responsible parties 

(PRPs) may undertake the RI/FS and/or 

remedial design/remedial action stages 

under supervision and pursuant to 

appropriate agreements with 

governmental authorities. PRPs may 

also take part in the remedy selection 

process through public participation 

opportunities. Regarding Amcast 

Industrial Corporation, where a 

potential developer requested the 

extension in order to pursue EPA 

brownfields grant funding, this 

arrangement would have been 

precluded once the site was proposed; 

sites proposed to the NPL are not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48417 

eligible to be considered for brownfields 

funding. The mayor of Cedarburg 

commented in support of listing the 

Amcast site, which EPA is doing 

through this final rule. 

In the case of the third site, Flat Creek 

IMM, four commenters supported listing 

but urged EPA to use local workers and 

implement an Historically 

Underutilized Business (HUB) zone set 

aside. EPA anticipates using the local 

work force at later stages of the 

Superfund process, but cannot create a 

HUB zone set aside because this is the 

responsibility of the Small Business 

Administration. Another commenter 

raised several different issues regarding 

the site. The commenter first provided 

dates and other site history details that 

were sometimes inconsistent with the 

documentation in the HRS record, 

which EPA based on materials from the 

Montana Department of State Lands. 

Regardless of whether the commenter or 

the State documents are correct, the 

differences have no impact on the site 

score since the information presented in 

the Site History and Description 

sections of the HRS documentation 

record was not used to compute the 

HRS score. The commenter claimed 

mining activities did not contaminate 

the ground water or surface drinking 

water. This has no bearing on the score 

because neither the ground water 

pathway nor the surface drinking water 

pathway was used in the scoring; the 

site was scored on the soil exposure and 

surface water environmental and human 

food chain pathways. The commenter 

next claimed the levels of lead in two 

dumptrucks worth of the tailings were 

less than the levels in the two batteries 

of the commenter’s pickup. In response, 

although lead was identified as being at 

the site, it was not used to calculate the 

site score, and removing it from the 

record would have no impact on the 

score. The commenter claimed fish still 

inhabit Flat Creek. This is consistent 

with the HRS record, which documents 

a fishery to be present within Flat Creek. 

The commenter also stated that most 

people have no contact with the tailings 

located along Flat Creek. Even if true, 

this comment does not affect the HRS 

site score because the soil exposure 

pathway scoring for the site considered 

locations other than the tailings along 

Flat Creek in computing the HRS score. 

In conclusion, these comments have no 

impact on the HRS score or listing 

decision for the Flat Creek IMM site. 

For the six remaining sites being 

finalized in this rule, EPA received no 

comments during the comment period: 

Lane Street Ground Water 

Contamination; Southwest Jefferson 

County Mining; Ore Knob Mine; GMH 

Electronics; Little Scioto River; and 

Salford Quarry. 

All comments that were received by 

EPA are contained in the Headquarters 

Docket and are also listed in EPA’s 

electronic public Docket and comment 

system at www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

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

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to 

Executive Order 12866 Review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Final Rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48418 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before EPA 

promulgates a rule where a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final 

Rule? 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not itself impose any costs. Listing 

does not mean that EPA necessarily will 

undertake remedial action. Nor does 

listing require any action by a private 

party or determine liability for response 

costs. Costs that arise out of site 

responses result from site-specific 

decisions regarding what actions to take, 

not directly from the act of placing a site 

on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As is 

mentioned above, site listing does not 

impose any costs and would not require 

any action of a small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What Is Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is 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. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable 

to This Final Rule? 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it does 

not contain any requirements applicable 

to States or other levels of government. 

Thus, the requirements of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this final rule. 

EPA believes, however, that this final 

rule may be of significant interest to 

State governments. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA therefore 

consulted with State officials and/or 

representatives of State governments 

early in the process of developing the 

rule to permit them to have meaningful 

and timely input into its development. 

All sites included in this final rule were 

referred to EPA by States for listing. For 

all sites in this rule, EPA received letters 

of support either from the Governor or 

a State official who was delegated the 

authority by the Governor to speak on 

their behalf regarding NPL listing 

decisions. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What Is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is 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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48419 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the Agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this section 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 

13211? 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy impacts because proposing a site 

to the NPL does not require an entity to 

conduct any action that would require 

energy use, let alone that which would 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What Is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply 

to This Final Rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

1. What Is Executive Order 12898? 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to 

This Rule? 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. As this rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty upon 

State, tribal or local governments, this 

rule will neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, that includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA has submitted 

a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

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

before a rule can take effect the Federal 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a report to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller 

General. This report must contain a 

copy of the rule, a concise general 

statement relating to the rule (including 

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

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

the agency’s actions relevant to 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (affecting small businesses) and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(describing unfunded federal 

requirements imposed on State and 

local governments and the private 

sector), and any other relevant 

information or requirements and any 

relevant Executive Orders. 

EPA has submitted a report under the 

CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. Section 

804(2) defines a major rule as any rule 

that the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or 

is likely to result in: an annual effect on 

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

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. NPL listing is not a 

major rule because, as explained above, 

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary 

costs on any person. It establishes no 

enforceable duties, does not establish 

that EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action, nor does it require any 

action by any party or determine its 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

48420 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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, EPA has 

transmitted a copy of this regulation to 

the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, EPA will publish a document 

of clarification in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 14, 2009. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

■ 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by adding the following 

sites in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

* * * * * * * 

CA ............... B.F. Goodrich .................................................................. Rialto..

* * * * * * * 

IN ................ Lane Street Ground Water Contamination ..................... Elkhart..

* * * * * * * 

MO .............. Southwest Jefferson County Mining ............................... Jefferson County..

* * * * * * * 

MT ............... Flat Creek IMM ............................................................... Superior..

* * * * * * * 

NC ............... Ore Knob Mine ................................................................ Ashe County..

* * * * * * * 

NC ............... GMH Electronics ............................................................. Roxboro..

* * * * * * * 

NJ ................ Curtis Specialty Papers, Inc ............................................ Milford..

* * * * * * * 

OH ............... Little Scioto River ............................................................ Marion County..

* * * * * * * 

PA ............... Salford Quarry ................................................................. Lower Salford Township..

* * * * * * * 

PR ............... Papelera Puertorriquena, Inc .......................................... Utuado..

* * * * * * * 

WI ................ Amcast Industrial Corporation ......................................... Cedarburg.

* * * * * * * 

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be > 28.50). 

C = Sites on Construction Completion list. 

S = State top priority (HRS score need not be > 28.50) 

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 23, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 48421 

[FR Doc. E9–22934 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Part 52 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Solicitation Provisions and Contract 

Clauses 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 to 99), 

revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 

123, in section 52.219–9, in the clause, 

move paragraph (d)(2)(vi), which 

precedes paragraph (d)(2)(v), to follow 

paragraph (d)(2)(v); remove the second 

paragraph (d)(2)(vi); and reinstate 

paragraph (d)(2)(iv) to read as follows: 

52.219–9 Small business subcontracting 

plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) Total dollars planned to be 

subcontracted to service-disabled 

veteran-owned small business; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–23053 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

48 CFR Part 909 

Acquisition Regulation; Contractor 

Qualifications 

CFR Correction 

In Title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapters 7 to 14, revised as 

of October 1, 2008, on page 300, 

reinstate section 909.405 to read as 

follows: 

909.405 Effect of listing. (DOE coverage— 

paragraph (e), (f), (g) and (h)) 

(e) The Department of Energy may not 

solicit offers from, award contracts to or 

consent to subcontract with contractors 

debarred, suspended or proposed for 

debarment unless the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Procurement and 

Assistance Management makes a written 

determination justifying that there is a 

compelling reason for such action in 

accordance with FAR 9.405(a). 

(f) DOE may disapprove or not 

consent to the selection (by a contractor) 

of an individual to serve as a principal 

investigator, as a project manager, in a 

position of responsibility for the 

administration of Federal funds, or in 

another key personnel position, if the 

individual is on the GSA List. 

(g) DOE shall not conduct business 

with an agent or representative of a 

contractor if the agent’s or 

representative’s name appears on the 

GSA List. 

(h) DOE shall review the GSA List 

before conducting a preaward survey or 

soliciting proposals, awarding contracts, 

renewing or otherwise extending the 

duration of existing contracts, or 

approving or consenting to the award, 

extension, or renewal of subcontracts. 

[61 FR 39857, July 31, 1996; 61 FR 41684, 

Aug. 9, 1996] 

[FR Doc. E9–23051 Filed 9–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No.0812171612–9134–02] 

RIN 0648–XR63 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts 

of Washington, Oregon and California. 

This action is necessary because the 

directed harvest allocation total for the 

third seasonal period (September 15– 

December 31) is projected to be reached 

by the effective date of the rule. From 

the effective date of this rule until 

December 31, 2009, Pacific sardine can 

only be harvested as part of the live bait 

fishery or incidental to other fisheries; 

the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine 

is limited to 20–percent by weight of all 

fish per trip. Fishing vessels must be at 

shore and in the process of offloading at 

12:01 am Pacific Daylight Time on date 

of closure. 

DATES: Effective 12:01 am Pacific 

Daylight Time (PDT) September 23, 

2009, through December 31, 2009 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that based on the 

best available information recently 

obtained from the fishery and 

information on past effort, the directed 

fishing harvest allocation for the third 

allocation period (September 15 - 

December 31) will be reached and 

therefore directed fishing for Pacific 

sardine is being closed until December 

31, 2009. Fishing vessels must be at 

shore and in the process of offloading at 

the time of closure. From 12:01 am on 

the date of closure until December 31, 

2009, Pacific sardine may be harvested 

only incidental to other fisheries, with 

the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine 

limited to 20–percent by weight of all 

fish caught during a trip. 

NMFS manages the Pacific sardine 

fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast 

(California, Oregon, and Washington) in 

accordance with the Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). Annual specifications published 

in the Federal Register establish the 

harvest guideline (HG) and allowable 

harvest levels for each Pacific sardine 

fishing season (January 1 - December 

31). If during any of the seasonal 

allocation periods the applicable 

adjusted directed harvest allocation is 

projected to be taken, only incidental 

harvest is allowed and, for the 

remainder of the period, any incidental 

Pacific sardine landings will be counted 

against that period’s incidental set 

aside. In the event that an incidental setaside is projected to be attained, all 

fisheries will be closed to the retention 

of Pacific sardine for the remainder of 

the period via appropriate rulemaking. 

Under 50 CFR 660.509 if the total HG 

or these apportionment levels for Pacific 

sardine are reached at any time, NMFS 

is required to close the Pacific sardine 

fishery via appropriate rulemaking and 

it is to remain closed until it re-opens 

either per the allocation scheme or the 

beginning of the next fishing season. In 

accordance with § 660.509 the Regional 

Administrator shall publish a notice in 

the Federal Register announcing the 

date of the closure of the directed 

fishery for Pacific sardine. 

The above in-season harvest 

restrictions are not intended to affect the 

prosecution the live bait portion of the 

Pacific sardine fishery. 

Classification 

This action is required by 50 CFR 

660.509 and is exempt from Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES