61492 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Note 1 to paragraph (k)(2)(i): Although the 

document specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i) has 

the watermarked words ‘‘Uncontrolled for 

Reference Only’’ on the title page and each 

page of the table of contents, and the 

watermarked word ‘‘Uncontrolled’’ on each 

page of Part 1, this is a current version of that 

document. 

(ii) Viking PSM 1–3–5, DHC–3 Otter 

Supplemental Inspection and Corrosion 

Control Manual, Revision IR, Part 1, dated 

December 21, 2017. 

(iii) Viking Service Bulletin V3/0012, 

Revision NC, dated January 20, 2022. 

(3) For Viking service information 

identified in this AD, contact Viking Air 

Limited Technical Support, 1959 de 

Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, 

Canada, V8L 5V5; phone: (800) 663–8444; 

fax: (403) 295–8888; email: dh_

technical.support@vikingair.com; website: 

vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 

Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

email: fr.inspection@nara.gov, or go to: 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued on August 31, 2023. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19170 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 161 

[Docket No. FDA–2016–P–0147] 

RIN 0910–AI74 

Fish and Shellfish; Canned Tuna 

Standard of Identity and Standard of 

Fill of Container 

Correction 

In rule document 2023–17916, 

appearing on pages 58157 through 

58167 in the issue of Friday, August 25, 

2023, make the following corrections: 

§ 161.190 Canned tuna. [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 58167, in the first column, 

on the third and second lines from the 

bottom, ‘‘11⁄4-inch’’ should read ‘‘11⁄2- 

inch’’. 

■ 2. On the same page, in the second 

column, on the eleventh and twelfth 

lines, ‘‘11⁄4-inch’’ should read ‘‘11⁄2- 

inch’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2023–17916 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–D 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0384, 0385, 0386 

and 0387; FRL–11234–01–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule proposes to add 

four sites to the General Superfund 

section of the NPL. 

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before November 6, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate 

docket number from the table below. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Lot 46 Valley Gardens TCE .............................. Des Moines, IA ................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0384. 

Acme Steel Coke Plant ..................................... Chicago, IL ....................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0385. 

Exide Baton Rouge ........................................... Baton Rouge, LA .............................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0386. 

Former Exide Technologies Laureldale ............ Laureldale, PA .................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0387. 

You may send comments, identified 

by the appropriate docket number, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Website: https://

www.epa.gov/superfund/current-nplupdates-new-proposed-npl-sites-andnew-npl-sites; scroll down to the site for 

which you would like to submit 

comments and click the ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ link. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 61493 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the appropriate Docket ID 

No. for site(s) for which you are 

submitting comments. Comments 

received may be posted without change 

to https://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information 

provided. For detailed instructions on 

sending comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the ‘‘Public Review/Public 

Comment’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this proposed rule? 

B. What documents are available for public 

review at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for public 

review at the EPA regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How do I submit my comments? 

F. What happens to my comments? 

G. What should I consider when preparing 

my comments? 

H. May I submit comments after the public 

comment period is over? 

I. May I view public comments submitted 

by others? 

J. May I submit comments regarding sites 

not currently proposed to the NPL? 

II. 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? 

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this proposed rule? 

Yes, documents that form the basis for 

the EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the 

sites in this proposed rule are contained 

in public dockets located both at the 

EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, 

and in the regional offices. An 

electronic version of the public docket 

is available through https://

www.regulations.gov (see table above 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. 

B. What documents are available for 

public review at the EPA Headquarters 

docket? 

The Headquarters docket for this 

proposed rule contains the following 

information for the sites proposed in 

this rule: Hazard Ranking System (HRS) 

score sheets; documentation records 

describing the information used to 

compute the score; information for any 

sites affected by particular statutory 

requirements or the EPA listing policies; 

and a list of documents referenced in 

the documentation record. These 

documents are also available online at 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

C. What documents are available for 

public review at the EPA regional 

dockets? 

The regional dockets for this proposed 

rule contain all of the information in the 

Headquarters docket plus the actual 

reference documents containing the data 

principally relied upon and cited by the 

EPA in calculating or evaluating the 

HRS score for the sites. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

regional dockets. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the primary documents 

that support this proposed rule online at 

https://www.regulations.gov or by 

contacting the EPA HQ docket. You may 

view the primary documents plus the 

references by contacting the regional 

dockets. 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. 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; 

(315) 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. 

You may also request copies from the 

EPA Headquarters or the regional 

dockets. An informal request, rather 

than a formal written request under the 

Freedom of Information Act, should be 

the ordinary procedure for obtaining 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
61494 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

copies of any of these documents. Please 

note that due to the difficulty of 

reproducing them, oversized maps may 

be viewed only in-person. The EPA 

dockets are not equipped to copy and 

mail out such maps, nor are they 

equipped to scan them for electronic 

distribution. 

You may use the docket at https://

www.regulations.gov to access 

documents in the Headquarters docket. 

Please note that there are differences 

between the Headquarters docket and 

the regional dockets, and those 

differences are outlined in this preamble 

above. 

E. How do I submit my comments? 

Follow the online instructions 

detailed above in the ADDRESSES section 

for submitting comments. Once 

submitted, comments cannot be edited 

or removed from the docket. The EPA 

may publish any comment received to 

its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

F. What happens to my comments? 

The EPA considers all comments 

received during the comment period. 

Significant comments are typically 

addressed in a support document that 

the EPA will publish concurrently with 

the Federal Register document if, and 

when, the site is listed on the NPL. 

G. What should I consider when 

preparing my comments? 

Comments that include complex or 

voluminous reports, or materials 

prepared for purposes other than HRS 

scoring, should point out the specific 

information that the EPA should 

consider and how it affects individual 

HRS factor values or other listing 

criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. 

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

1988)). The EPA will not address 

voluminous comments that are not 

referenced to the HRS or other listing 

criteria. The EPA will not address 

comments unless they indicate which 

component of the HRS documentation 

record or what particular point in the 

EPA’s stated eligibility criteria is at 

issue. 

H. May I submit comments after the 

public comment period is over? 

Generally, the EPA will not respond 

to late comments. The EPA can 

guarantee only that it will consider 

those comments postmarked by the 

close of the formal comment period. The 

EPA has a policy of generally not 

delaying a final listing decision solely to 

accommodate consideration of late 

comments. 

I. May I view public comments 

submitted by others? 

During the comment period, 

comments are placed in the 

Headquarters docket and are available to 

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

complete set of comments will be 

available for viewing in the regional 

dockets approximately one week after 

the formal comment period closes. 

All public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper 

form, will be made available for public 

viewing in the electronic public docket 

at https://www.regulations.gov as the 

EPA receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Once in the public 

dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then 

key in the appropriate docket ID 

number. 

J. May I submit comments regarding 

sites not currently proposed to the NPL? 

In certain instances, interested parties 

have written to the EPA concerning sites 

that were not at that time proposed to 

the NPL. If those sites are later proposed 

to the NPL, parties should review their 

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, 

resubmit those concerns for 

consideration during the formal 

comment period. Site-specific 

correspondence received prior to the 

period of formal proposal and comment 

will not generally be included in the 

docket. 

II. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 61495 

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) 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), 

each State may designate a single site as 

its top priority to be listed on the NPL, 

without any HRS score. This provision 

of CERCLA requires that, to the extent 

practicable, the NPL include one facility 

designated by each State as the greatest 

danger to public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

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

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ The EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination; and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones Company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

The EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken . . . to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
61496 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 (formerly called Sitewide 

Ready-for-Reuse) represents important 

Superfund accomplishments, and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

Implementing the Sitewide Ready-forReuse Measure, May 24, 2006, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(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/aboutsuperfund-cleanup-process#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/ 

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. 

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

In this proposed rule, the EPA is 

proposing to add four sites to the NPL, 

all to the General Superfund section. All 

of the sites in this rulemaking are being 

proposed for NPL addition based on an 

HRS score of 28.50 or above. 

The sites are presented in the table 

below. 

GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

IA ........................ Lot 46 Valley Gardens TCE ..................................................... Des Moines. 

IL ........................ Acme Steel Coke Plant ............................................................ Chicago. 

LA ....................... Exide Baton Rouge .................................................................. Baton Rouge. 

PA ...................... Former Exide Technologies Laureldale ................................... Laureldale. 

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 proposed rule does not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 61497 

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 proposed rule listing sites 

on the NPL does not impose any 

obligations on any group, including 

small entities. This proposed 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 proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not impose any costs on a Tribe or 

require a Tribe to take remedial action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this action itself is procedural 

in nature (adds sites to a list) and does 

not, in and of itself, provide protection 

from environmental health and safety 

risks. Separate future regulatory actions 

are required for mitigation of 

environmental health and safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

discussed in section I.C. of the preamble 

to this action, the NPL is a list of 

national priorities. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

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. 

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 forth in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 300 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 the entries for ‘‘IA, 

Lot 46 Valley Gardens TCE’’, ‘‘IL, Acme 

Steel Coke Plant’’, ‘‘LA, Exide Baton 

Rouge’’, and ‘‘PA, Former Exide 

Technologies Laureldale’’ 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) 

*******

IA ...................... Lot 46 Valley Gardens TCE ........................................ Des Moines.

*******

IL ...................... Acme Steel Coke Plant ............................................... Chicago.


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
61498 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 172 / Thursday, September 7, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/county Notes (a) 

*******

LA ..................... Exide Baton Rouge ..................................................... Baton Rouge.

*******

PA ..................... Former Exide Technologies Laureldale ...................... Laureldale.

*******

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. 2023–19005 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

48 CFR Parts 3015, 3016 and 3052 

[Docket No. DHS–2009–005] 

RIN 1601–AA43 

Homeland Security Acquisition 

Regulation; Limitations on 

Subcontracting in Emergency 

Acquisitions; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Procurement 

Officer, Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: DHS is withdrawing a 

proposed rule titled Limitations on 

Subcontracting in Emergency 

Acquisitions (HSAR Case 2009–005) and 

providing notice of its cancellation. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking proposed 

to amend the Homeland Security 

Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) to 

implement Limitations on Tiering of 

Subcontractors limiting the use of 

subcontractors on cost-reimbursement 

type contracts entered into by the 

Department to facilitate the response to 

or recovery from a natural disaster or act 

of terrorism or other man-made disaster. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

June 9, 2010 (75 FR 32723) is 

withdrawn effective September 7, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Mail: Department of 

Homeland Security, Office of the Chief 

Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy 

and Legislation, ATTN: Catherine 

Benavides, 245 Murray Drive, Bldg. 410 

(RDS), Washington, DC 20528. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Catherine Benavides, Procurement 

Analyst, DHS, Office of the Chief 

Procurement Officer, Acquisition Policy 

and Legislation at (202) 897–8301 or 

email HSAR@hq.dhs.gov. When using 

email, include HSAR Case 2009–005 in 

the ‘‘Subject’’ line. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 9, 

2010 the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) proposed to amend the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Acquisition Regulation (HSAR), 48 CFR 

chapters 15, 16 and 52 to provide notice 

to implement Public Law 109–295 PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act (PKERMA), title VI, section 692, 

Limitations on Tiering of 

Subcontractors. Subsequently, title VIII, 

Section 866 of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 resulted in 

government-wide changes to the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation to prevent 

excessive subcontracting, making 

Section 692 unnecessary. 

DHS is withdrawing this proposed 

rule because Public Law 117–253, 

effective December 20, 2022, repealed 

Sec. 692 of the Post-Katrina Reform Act 

of 2006. Thus, DHS will not take any 

further action on this proposal. 

Paul Courtney, 

Chief Procurement Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19316 Filed 9–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1