14802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 

(February 22, 2013). 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because this action 

imposes no new requirements to apply 

in Indian country located in the State, 

and EPA notes that this action will not 

impose direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 16, 2022. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action to determine attainment, 

under the Clean Data Policy, of 

Allegheny County nonattainment area 

for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Diana Esher, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05446 Filed 3–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0041; FRL–9572–01– 

R9] 

Approval of Arizona Air Plan 

Revisions, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality and Maricopa 

County Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve revisions to the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) and Maricopa County Air 

Quality Department (MCAQD) portions 

of the Arizona State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions were 

submitted by ADEQ and MCAQD in 

response to the EPA’s June 12, 2015 

finding of substantial inadequacy and 

SIP call for certain provisions in the SIP 

related to excess emissions during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) events. The EPA is finalizing 

approval of the SIP revisions because 

the Agency has determined that they are 

in accordance with the requirements for 

SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) and correct 

deficiencies identified in the June 12, 

2015 SIP call. 

DATES: These rules are effective on April 

15, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0041. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued 

a Federal Register notice of proposed 

rulemaking outlining EPA’s policy at 

the time with respect to SIP provisions 

related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed 

specific SSM SIP provisions and 

explained how each one either did or 

did not comply with the CAA with 

regard to excess emission events.1 For 

each SIP provision that EPA determined 

to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA 

proposed to find that the existing SIP 

provision was substantially inadequate 

to meet CAA requirements and thus 

proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 

2014, EPA issued a document 

supplementing and revising what the 

Agency had previously proposed on 

February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. 

Circuit decision that determined the 

CAA precludes authority of the EPA to 

create affirmative defense provisions 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14803 

2 80 FR 33839. 

3October 9, 2020, memorandum ‘‘Inclusion of 

Provisions Governing Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans,’’ from Andrew R. Wheeler, 

Administrator. 

4September 30, 2021, memorandum ‘‘Withdrawal 

of the October 9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State 

Implementation Plans and Implementation of the 

Prior Policy,’’ from Janet McCabe, Deputy 

Administrator. 

5 80 FR 33985. 

6 82 FR 13084. 

applicable to private civil suits. EPA 

outlined its updated policy that 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

not consistent with CAA requirements. 

EPA proposed in the supplemental 

proposal document to apply its revised 

interpretation of the CAA to specific 

affirmative defense SIP provisions and 

proposed SIP calls for those provisions 

where appropriate (79 FR 55920, 

September 17, 2014). 

On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy 

Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction,’’ hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘2015 SSM SIP 

Action.’’ 2 The 2015 SSM SIP Action 

clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s 

interpretation that SSM exemption and 

affirmative defense SIP provisions are 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that 

certain SIP provisions in 36 states were 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements and issued a SIP call to 

those states to submit SIP revisions to 

address the inadequacies. The EPA 

established an 18-month deadline by 

which the affected states had to submit 

such SIP revisions. States were required 

to submit corrective revisions to their 

SIPs in response to the SIP calls by 

November 22, 2016. 

The EPA issued a Memorandum in 

October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), 

which stated that certain provisions 

governing SSM periods in SIPs could be 

viewed as consistent with CAA 

requirements.3 Importantly, the 2020 

Memorandum stated that it ‘‘did not 

alter in any way the determinations 

made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that 

identified specific state SIP provisions 

that were substantially inadequate to 

meet the requirements of the Act.’’ 

Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum 

had no direct impact on the SIP call 

issued to ADEQ and MCAQD in 2015. 

It also did not alter the EPA’s prior 

proposal from 2017 to approve the 

ADEQ and MCAQD SIP revisions at 

issue in this action. The 2020 

Memorandum did, however, indicate 

the EPA’s intent at the time to review 

SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 

SSM SIP Action to determine whether 

the EPA should maintain, modify, or 

withdraw particular SIP calls through 

future agency actions. 

On September 30, 2021, EPA’s Deputy 

Administrator withdrew the 2020 

Memorandum and announced the EPA’s 

return to the policy articulated in the 

2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 

Memorandum).4 As articulated in the 

2021 Memorandum, SIP provisions that 

contain exemptions or affirmative 

defense provisions are not consistent 

with CAA requirements and, therefore, 

generally are not approvable if 

contained in a SIP submission. This 

policy approach is intended to ensure 

that all communities and populations, 

including minority, low-income and 

indigenous populations overburdened 

by air pollution, receive the full health 

and environmental protections provided 

by the CAA.5 The 2021 Memorandum 

also retracted the prior statement from 

the 2020 Memorandum of EPA’s plans 

to review and potentially modify or 

withdraw particular SIP calls. That 

statement no longer reflects EPA’s 

intent. EPA intends to implement the 

principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action as the Agency takes action on 

SIP submissions, including ADEQ’s and 

MCAQD’s SIP submittal, provided in 

response to the 2015 SIP call. 

With regards to ADEQ and MCAQD, 

the SIP call identified R18–2–310 and 

Rule 140 because they contained 

improper affirmative defenses for excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction events. On March 9, 

2017, the EPA proposed to approve 

removal of R18–2–310 and Rule 140 

from the Arizona SIP.6

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Removed from 

state law Submitted 

ADEQ ............... R18–2–310 Affirmative Defense for Excess Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Startup, 

and Shutdown.

09/07/16 11/17/16 

MCAQD ............ 140 Excess Emissions ......................................................................................... 08/17/16 11/18/16 

As discussed in the proposal, EPA 

proposed to approve the removal of 

R18–2–310 and Rule 140 from the 

ADEQ and MCAQD portions of the 

Arizona SIP because such removal is 

consistent with CAA requirements and 

would correct the deficiency identified 

by the Agency in the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

The EPA’s proposed action provided 

a 30-day public comment period. EPA 

acknowledges that over four years have 

elapsed since the comment period 

closed. No additional comment period 

is needed because nothing in the 

intervening time period—including the 

issuance and subsequent withdrawal of 

the 2020 Memorandum—changed the 

basis for EPA’s proposed action or the 

public’s opportunity to view and 

comment on that basis. Accordingly, the 

March 9, 2017 notice provided the 

public with a full opportunity to 

comment on the issues raised by the 

proposed action. Three comments 

expressed support for the proposed 

action. A summary of the fourth 

comment from the Salt River Project 

Agricultural Improvement and Power 

District (‘‘SRP’’ or ‘‘commenter’’) and 

EPA’s response is provided below. 

Comment: The commenter states that 

it is inappropriate for the EPA to 

finalize its proposed approval of 

Arizona’s response to the SSM SIP call 

until litigation before the United State 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (D.C. Circuit) is resolved. In 

support of this claim, the commenter 

states that if the D.C. Circuit rules in 

favor of the petitioners who have 

challenged the 2015 SSM SIP call, the 

Arizona SIP will need to be revised 

again to reinsert the SSM provisions. 

Response: The EPA respectfully 

disagrees with this comment. The 

Agency acknowledges that there exist 

pending challenges to the 2015 SSM SIP 

action in the D.C. Circuit. However, 

there is no requirement or expectation 

that EPA must postpone action while 

awaiting a court decision. ADEQ and 

MCAQD have submitted SIP revisions to 

the Agency that are fully approvable for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
14804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7Sierra Club v. Johnson 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

8NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

the reasons outlined in the 2017 

proposal notice. As a result, EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to take 

action to approve the ADEQ and 

MCAQD SIP revisions in accordance 

with applicable CAA requirements. 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The 

commenter has pointed to no alleged 

deficiency or other aspect that would 

lead the Agency to determine that the 

SIP revisions should be disapproved or 

that full approval of the SIP revisions is 

not otherwise appropriate. 

We are also not persuaded by the 

commenter’s assertion that the ADEQ 

and MCAQD portions of the Arizona SIP 

will need to be revised if the D.C. 

Circuit rules in favor of the petitioners. 

The CAA contains no requirement that 

affirmative defense provisions be 

included in SIPs. Therefore, there 

would be no obligation on states to 

submit such provisions, regardless of 

the outcome in the D.C. Circuit 

litigation. 

As we recently reaffirmed in the 2021 

Memorandum, EPA is implementing 

policy consistent with that outlined in 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action. That policy 

aligns with previous court decisions, 

including the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in 

2008, which found that inclusion of 

SSM exemptions in section 112 

standards is not allowed under the CAA 

due to the generally applicable 

definition of emission limitations.7

Additionally, in 2014 the D.C. Circuit 

vacated a provision in EPA regulations 

that allowed an affirmative defense if it 

met specific criteria. The court stated 

that EPA lacked authority to create such 

a defense because it would 

impermissibly encroach upon the 

authority of federal courts to find 

liability or impose remedies.8 It was in 

light of the 2008 and 2014 court cases, 

as well as concerns about the public 

health impacts of SSM, that led EPA in 

its 2015 action to clarify and update its 

SSM policy to explain that automatic 

exemptions, discretionary exemptions, 

overly broad enforcement discretion 

provisions, and affirmative defense 

provisions like the ones at issue in 

today’s action, will generally be viewed 

as inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act and for the reasons 

identified in the 2017 proposal, the EPA 

is fully approving the removal of these 

rules from the ADEQ and MCAQD 

portions of the Arizona SIP. The 

Agency’s final approval of this 

submission fully corrects the 

inadequacies in the ADEQ and MCAQD 

portions of the Arizona SIP that were 

identified in the EPA’s 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, the EPA is 

amending regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. As described 

in Section I, Background, of this 

preamble and set forth in the 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 below, 

EPA is removing provisions from the 

Arizona Administrative Code and 

Maricopa County portions of the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

accordance with the requirements of 1 

CFR part 51. The EPA has made and 

will continue to make the State 

Implementation Plan generally available 

through www.regulations.gov and at the 

EPA Region 9 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

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 action is not a 

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

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 16, 2022. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14805 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 8, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. In § 52.120, amend paragraph (c) 

by: 

■ a. In Table 2 removing the entry for 

‘‘R18–2–310’’, and 

■ b. In Table 4 removing the entry for 

‘‘Rule 140’’. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05367 Filed 3–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0454, 0456, 0457, 

0458, 0459, 0460, 0461, 0462, 0464, 0465, 

0466 and 0467; FRL–9184–01–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 12 sites to 

the NPL, 11 to the General Superfund 

section and one to the Federal Facilities 

section. 

DATES: The rule is effective on April 15, 

2022. 

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, phone: (202) 566–1048, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204T), 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. 

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, Library, 1650 

Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, 

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, Mailcode 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, Mailcode SED, 

Dallas, TX 75270; 214/665–3154. 

• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, 

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

Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 

66219; 913/551–7956. 

• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6578. 

• Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, 

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

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972– 

3160. 

• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, 

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

155, Mailcode 12–D12–1, Seattle, WA 

98101; 206/890–0591. 

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? 

C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker 

Avenue Plume Site 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1