61470 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Part 1190 

[Docket No. ATBCB 2011–0004] 

RIN 3014–AA26 

Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian 

Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board or Board) is 

correcting a final rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register of August 8, 2023. 

The document provided minimum 

guidelines for the accessibility of 

pedestrian facilities in the public rightof-way. The document had an incorrect 

effective date for the rule. 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

October 7, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frances Spiegel, Office of General 

Counsel, Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

Telephone (202) 272–0041. Email 

address spiegel@access-board.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR. 

Doc. 2023–16149, appearing on page 

53604 in the first column, in the Federal 

Register of Tuesday, August 8, 2023, 

correct the DATES caption to read: 

DATES: The final rule is effective on 

October 7, 2023. 

Dated: August 31, 2023. 

Christopher Kuczynski, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19250 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0050, 0051 and 

0052; FRL–11235–02–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule adds three sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL. 

DATES: The rule is effective on October 

10, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW; William 

Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, (202) 566– 

0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, Site Assessment and 

Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment 

and Remediation Division, Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460, telephone number: (202) 

566–1048, email address: jeng.terry@

epa.gov. 

The contact information for the 

regional dockets is as follows: 

• Holly Inglis, 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) 918–1413. 

• James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, 

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

York, NY 10007–1866; (212) 637–4342. 

• Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, 

PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 4 Penn Center, 

1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mail 

code 3SD12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 

(215) 814–3355. 

• Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, 

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

Forsyth Street SW, Mail code 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; (404) 562–8926. 

• 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. 

• Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 

(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1201 

Elm Street, Suite 500, Mail code SED, 

Dallas, TX 75270; (214) 665–3154. 

• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, 

KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner 

Blvd., Mail code SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, 

KS 66219; (913) 551–7956. 

• David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mail code 8SEM–EM– 

P, Denver, CO 80202–1129; (303) 312– 

6096. 

• Matt Mitguard, Region 9 (AZ, CA, 

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

Hawthorne Street, Mail code SFD–6–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 972– 

3096. 

• Brandon Perkins, Region 10 (AK, 

ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Mail code 13–J07, Seattle, WA 

98101; (206) 553–6396. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What is the NCP? 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of 

sites? 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

I. What is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use measure? 

K. What is State/Tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL Listing? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA 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? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61471 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody or control, although the EPA is 

responsible for preparing a Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and 

determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

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

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), 

a subsurface intrusion component was 

added to the HRS to enable the EPA to 

consider human exposure to hazardous 

substances or pollutants and 

contaminants that enter regularly 

occupied structures through subsurface 

intrusion when evaluating sites for the 

NPL. The current HRS evaluates four 

pathways: ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, 

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) 

Each State may designate a single site as 

its top priority to be listed on the NPL, 

without any HRS score. This provision 

of CERCLA requires that, to the extent 

practicable, the NPL include one facility 

designated by each State as the greatest 

danger to public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions’’ (40 CFR 300.5).) 

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

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not 

imply that monies will be expended.’’ 

The EPA may pursue other appropriate 

authorities to respond to the releases, 

including enforcement action under 

CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
61472 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 previously, 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 more 

information on the CCL, see the EPA’s 

internet site at https://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/construction-completionsnational-priorities-list-npl-sites-number. 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for

Anticipated Use measure?

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure represents important 

Superfund accomplishments, and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

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

9365.0–36. This measure applies to final 

and deleted sites where construction is 

complete, all cleanup goals have been 

achieved, and all institutional or other 

controls are in place. The EPA has been 

successful on many occasions in 

carrying out remedial actions that 

ensure protectiveness of human health 

and the environment for current and 

future land uses, in a manner that 

allows contaminated properties to be 

restored to environmental and economic 

vitality. For further information, please 

go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

about-superfund-cleanupprocess#reuse. 

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 website: https://www.epa.gov/ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61473 

superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing. 

The EPA has improved the 

transparency of the process by which 

State and Tribal input is solicited. The 

EPA is using the Web and where 

appropriate more structured State and 

Tribal correspondence that: (1) Explains 

the concerns at the site and the EPA’s 

rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an 

explanation of how the State intends to 

address the site if placement on the NPL 

is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the 

transparent nature of the process by 

informing States that information on 

their responses will be publicly 

available. 

A model letter and correspondence 

between the EPA and States and Tribes 

where applicable, is available on the 

EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at the EPA headquarters 

and in the EPA regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through https://

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 in section II.D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Federated Metals Corp Whiting ........................ Hammond, IN ................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0050. 

Capitol Lakes ..................................................... Baton Rouge, LA .............................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0051. 

Fansteel Metals/FMRI ....................................... Muskogee, OK .................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0052. 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

The headquarters docket for this rule 

contains the HRS score sheets, the 

documentation record describing the 

information used to compute the score, 

a list of documents referenced in the 

documentation record for each site and 

any other information used to support 

the NPL listing of the site. These 

documents are also available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA regional dockets? 

The EPA 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. 

These reference documents are available 

only in the regional dockets. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents that 

support this rule online at https://

www.regulations.gov or by contacting 

the EPA HQ docket or appropriate 

regional docket. 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 individual 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 https://

www.epa.gov/superfund/nationalpriorities-list-npl-sites-site-name. 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 

three sites to the General Superfund 

section of the NPL. These sites are being 

added to the NPL based on HRS scores 

of 28.50 or above. 

GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

IN ......... Federated Metals Corp 

Whiting.

Hammond. 

LA ........ Capitol Lakes ... Baton Rouge. 

OK ........ Fansteel Metals/ 

FMRI.

Muskogee. 

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. 

The EPA is adding three sites to the NPL 

in this final rule. All three sites were 

proposed for addition to the NPL on 

March 29, 2023 (88 FR 18499). 

Comments on the Federated Metals 

Corp Whiting site are being addressed in 

a response to comment support 

document available in the public docket 

concurrently with this rule. To view 

public comments on the site, as well as 

EPA’s response, please refer to the 

support document available at https://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA received 

no comments on the Fansteel Metals/ 

FMRI site. Below is a summary of 

significant comments received on the 

remaining site. 

Capitol Lakes: 

The EPA received one comment 

supporting the listing of the Capitol 

Lakes site and two other comments that 

did not oppose the addition of the site 

to the NPL. In support of listing, a 

private citizen expressed concern about 

the contamination associated with the 

site and the impacts to aquatic habitats, 

noting that mitigation measures would 

be beneficial. An additional private 

citizen that did not oppose the listing 

expressed concern over the 

contamination identified in the Capitol 

Lakes. 

Paramount Global, while not 

opposing the placement of the Capitol 

Lakes site on the NPL, submitted 

comments asserting that attribution of 

the observed release, even in part, to the 

former Westinghouse facility is not 

supported by available information. 

Paramount Global stated that 

Westinghouse completed remedial 

activities to address contamination at 

the former Westinghouse facility and 

received a ‘‘no further action’’ 

determination from the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ) following its remedial activities. 

Paramount Global commented that this 

determination was received prior to 

LDEQ’s subsequent human health risk 

assessment of Capitol Lakes. Paramount 

Global asserted that these past remedial 

activities and determination from LDEQ 

indicated that the observed release in 

Capitol Lakes could not be attributed to 

former Westinghouse facility. 

The Capitol Lakes site was evaluated 

as a contaminated sediment plume with 

no identified source because the EPA 

could not attribute the increase in 

hazardous substance concentrations in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
61474 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Capitol Lakes to a particular source or 

sources. Due to the large number of 

industrial and commercial activities in 

the area, the EPA was unable to attribute 

the observed release to a particular site 

or sites, including the former 

Westinghouse facility. The evaluation of 

a significant increase in contamination 

in Capitol Lakes was not challenged by 

the commenter. 

In explaining the HRS scoring 

approach, the EPA noted in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal that 

there are many possible sources of the 

hazardous substances identified in the 

sub-watershed; however, ‘‘sampling 

failed to demonstrate attribution of the 

increase in contaminant levels to any 

specific source.’’ Specifically, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal 

indicated that, following a review of 

databases, there were multiple possible 

sources identified in the vicinity that 

included municipal and State facilities, 

railyards, and various commercial and 

industrial facilities; samples from 

multiple drainage pathways discharging 

to Capitol Lakes were also collected. 

Regarding attribution to the 

Westinghouse facility, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal 

explained that while PCBs had been 

previously identified at the 

Westinghouse facility, other nearby 

facilities had also been identified. The 

HRS documentation record at proposal 

stated that, the Westinghouse facility 

‘‘was identified as one of the sources of 

PCB contamination in the drainage 

canal’’ and Westinghouse implemented 

runoff control measures and removed 

contaminated soil following State 

direction to clean up PCB 

contamination at its property. The HRS 

documentation record at proposal also 

indicated that the ‘‘LDEQ also identified 

multiple other government and private 

sector facilities’’ that may have been 

associated with PCB contamination. As 

a result of the commingled PCB and 

other hazardous substances 

contamination from known and 

unknown possible sources, the HRS 

documentation record at proposal 

indicated that the significant increase of 

hazardous substances in the observed 

release samples in the Capitol Lakes 

could not be attributed to any known 

source or sources. Evaluating this site 

without attributing the observed release 

to a source or sources is consistent with 

the HRS because the HRS indicates that 

no separate attribution is needed when 

the site itself consists of contaminated 

sediments with no identified source. 

Placing a site on the NPL is based on 

an evaluation, in accordance with the 

HRS, of a release or threatened release 

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants. A subsequent stage of the 

Superfund process, the remedial 

investigation (RI), characterizes 

conditions and hazards at the site more 

comprehensively. The EPA will 

continue to examine a site to determine 

what response, if any, is appropriate, 

during subsequent stages of the 

Superfund process. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This rule listing sites on the 

NPL does not impose any obligations on 

any group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet and imposes no direct costs on any 

small entity. Whether an entity, small or 

otherwise, is liable for response costs for 

a release of hazardous substances 

depends on whether that entity is liable 

under CERCLA 107(a). Any such 

liability exists regardless of whether the 

site is listed on the NPL through this 

rulemaking. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

Listing a site on the NPL does not itself 

impose any costs. Listing does not mean 

that the EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action. Nor does listing require 

any action by a private party, State, 

local or Tribal governments or 

determine liability for response costs. 

Costs that arise out of site responses 

result from future site-specific decisions 

regarding what actions to take, not 

directly from the act of placing a site on 

the NPL. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not impose any costs on a Tribe or 

require a Tribe to take remedial action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this action itself is procedural 

in nature (adds sites to a list) and does 

not, in and of itself, provide protection 

from environmental health and safety 

risks. Separate future regulatory actions 

are required for mitigation of 

environmental health and safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 61475 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

discussed in section I.C. of the preamble 

to this action, the NPL is a list of 

national priorities. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance as it does 

not assign liability to any party. Also, 

placing a site on the NPL does not mean 

that any remedial or removal action 

necessarily need be taken. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

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

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

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 

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

continue in effect, if Congress enacts 

(and the President signs) a joint 

resolution of disapproval, described 

under section 802. Another statutory 

provision that may affect this rule is 

CERCLA section 305, which provides 

for a legislative veto of regulations 

promulgated under CERCLA. Although 

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

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

University of Washington v. EPA, 86 

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

validity of the legislative veto into 

question, the EPA has transmitted a 

copy of this regulation to the Secretary 

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, the EPA will publish a 

document of clarification in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Land and Emergency Management. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 300, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 

U.S.C. 9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 

3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 

FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 

12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 

193. 

■ 2. Amend table 1 of appendix B to 

part 300 by adding entries for ‘‘IN, 

Federated Metals Corp Whiting’’, ‘‘LA, 

Capitol Lakes’’, and ‘‘OK, Fansteel 

Metals/FMRI’’ in alphabetical order by 

State to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

IN ................................... Federated Metals Corp Whiting ............................ Hammond.

*******

LA .................................. Capitol Lakes ........................................................ Baton Rouge.

*******

OK ................................. Fansteel Metals/FMRI ........................................... Muskogee ............................................................. S 

* * * * * * * 

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

than or equal to 28.50). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–19114 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 230831–0208] 

RIN 0648–BM37 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal 

Migratory Pelagic Resources in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 

Framework Amendment 12 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations to 

implement a management measure 

described in Framework Amendment 12 

under the Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic 

(CMP) Resources of the Gulf of Mexico 

and Atlantic Region (CMP FMP), as 

prepared and submitted by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Gulf Council). This final rule and 

Framework Amendment 12 modify the 

Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) migratory group of 

king mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) 

gillnet component commercial fishing 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1