16126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

COD receipt and the Express Mail 

receipt or the Registered Mail receipt. 

Upon written request by the USPS, the 

customer must submit proof of damage 

(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing 

contents, in person to a local Post Office 

for inspection, retention, and 

disposition in accordance with the 

claims decision. 

1.6.2 Claims Filed Online 

Customers may file a claim online for 

insured mail and Express Mail at 

http://www.usps.com/insuranceclaims/ 

online.htm. Evidence of value is 

required and may be submitted as an 

uploaded file or sent via First-Class Mail 

to Domestic Claims, Accounting 

Services (see 608.8). Evidence of 

insurance must be retained by the 

customer until the claim is resolved. 

Upon written request by the USPS, the 

customer must submit proof of damage 

(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing 

contents, in person to a local Post Office 

for inspection, retention, and 

disposition in accordance with the 

claims decision. COD and Registered 

Mail claims cannot be filed online. 

1.6.3 Claims Filed at the Post Office 

A customer may file PS Form 1000 at 

a local Post Office, which will then 

forward the form to Accounting Services 

in St. Louis. Customers may print PS 

Form 1000 from http://www.usps.com/ 

insuranceclaims. Evidence of value is 

required and must accompany the PS 

Form 1000. Evidence of insurance must 

be retained by the customer until the 

claim is resolved. For Express Mail COD 

and Registered Mail COD claims, the 

customer must provide both the original 

COD receipt and the Express Mail 

receipt or the Registered Mail receipt. 

Upon written request by the USPS, the 

customer must submit proof of damage 

(see 2.0) for damaged items or missing 

contents, in person to a local Post Office 

for inspection, retention, and 

disposition in accordance with the 

claims decision. 

* * * * * 

2.0 Providing Proof of Loss or Damage 

2.1 Missing Contents 

[Revise the first sentence of 2.1 to 

read as follows:] 

If a claim is filed because some or all 

of the contents are missing, the 

addressee must retain the mailing 

container, including wrapping, 

packaging, and any contents that were 

received, and must, upon written 

request by the USPS, make them 

available to the local Post Office for 

inspection, retention, and disposition in 

accordance with the claims 

decision. * * * 

2.2 Proof of Damage 

[Revise the first and second sentences 

of 2.2 to read as follows:] 

If the addressee files the claim, the 

addressee must retain the damaged 

article and mailing container, including 

wrapping, packaging, and contents, and 

must, upon written request by the 

USPS, make them available for 

inspection. If the mailer files the claim, 

Accounting Services in St. Louis may 

notify the addressee by letter to present 

the damaged article and mailing 

container, including any wrapping, 

packaging, and any other contents 

received, to a local Post Office for 

inspection, retention, and disposition in 

accordance with the claims 

decision. * * * 

* * * * * 

3.0 Providing Evidence of Insurance 

and Value 

3.1 Evidence of Insurance 

[Revise introductory paragraph and 

item 3.1a to read as follows:] 

For a claim involving insured mail, 

Registered Mail, COD, or Express Mail, 

the customer must retain evidence 

showing that the particular service was 

purchased until the claim is resolved. 

Examples of acceptable evidence of 

insurance are: 

a. The original mailing receipt issued 

at the time of mailing (retail insured 

mail, Registered Mail, and COD receipts 

must contain a USPS postmark). Except 

for Registered Mail and COD claims, a 

photocopy of the original mailing 

receipt is acceptable. If the original 

mailing receipt, or a photocopy of such 

receipt, is not available, the original 

USPS sales receipt listing the mailing 

receipt number and insurance amount is 

acceptable. Customers filing online 

claims may scan the receipt and submit 

as an uploaded file. 

* * * * * 

[Delete item 3.1d, and redesignate 

current items 3.1e and 3.1f as 3.1d and 

3.1e.] 

* * * * * 

3.2 Evidence of Value 

[Revise introductory paragraph of 3.2 

to add online option as follows:] 

The customer (either the mailer or the 

addressee) must submit acceptable 

evidence to establish the cost or value 

of the article at the time it was mailed. 

For claims submitted online, the 

evidence may be scanned and uploaded 

or sent via First-Class Mail to Domestic 

Claims, Accounting Services (see 

608.8.0). Other evidence may be 

requested to help determine an accurate 

value. Examples of acceptable evidence 

are: 

* * * * * 

6.0 Adjudication of Claims 

6.1 Initial Adjudication of Claims 

[Revise 6.1 to read as follows:] 

Accounting Services in St. Louis 

adjudicates and determines whether to 

uphold a claim in full, uphold a claim 

in part, or deny a claim in full. Domestic 

insurance claims may be filed online 

through http://www.usps.com/ 

insuranceclaims/online.htm, via mail to 

Domestic Claims Accounting Services 

(see 608.8), or by filing it at a local Post 

Office. Claims for COD and Registered 

Mail cannot be filed online. 

6.2 Appealing a Claim Decision 

[Revise 6.2 to read as follows:] 

A customer may appeal a claim 

decision by filing a written appeal to 

Domestic Claims Appeals, Accounting 

Services (see 608.8) within 60 days of 

the date of the original decision. A 

customer may also appeal a claim 

decision online through http:// 

www.usps.com/insuranceclaims/ 

online.htm if the original claim was 

filed online. 

6.3 Final USPS Decision of Claims 

[Revise text of 6.3 by adding a new 

last sentence as follows:] 

* * * The customer may file the 

additional appeal online if the original 

appeal was filed online. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E9–8038 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0575, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2008–0576, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008– 

0577, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585, EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2008–0580, EPA–HQ–SFUND– 

2008–0581, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582, 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0583, EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2008–0083; FRL–8790–1] 

RIN 2050–AD75 

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 

46 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16127 

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 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

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

be appropriate. This rule adds nine sites 

to the NPL, eight to the General 

Superfund Section and one to the 

Federal Facilities Section. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

for this amendment to the NCP is May 

11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 

well as further details on what these 

dockets contain, see section II, 

‘‘Availability of Information to the 

Public’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone (703) 603–8852, 

jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and 

Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment 

and Remediation Division, Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; or the 

Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424– 

9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan area. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What Is the NCP? 

C. What Is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of 

Sites? 

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From 

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

I. What Is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant 

to This Final Rule? 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL 

Sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. Site Name Change 

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive 

Order 12866 Review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Final Rule? 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It 

Applicable to This Final Rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What Is Executive Order 13175? 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 

13211? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What Is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act Apply to This 

Final Rule? 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

1. What Is Executive Order 12898? 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

3. What Could Cause a Change in the 

Effective Date of This Rule? 

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What Is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What Is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

16128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide EPA in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’), and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody, or control, although EPA is 

responsible for preparing a Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and 

determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. EPA’s role is less 

extensive than at other sites. 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which EPA promulgated as 

appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 

300). The HRS serves as a screening tool 

to evaluate the relative potential of 

uncontrolled hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants to pose a 

threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions 

to the HRS partly in response to 

CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure, and air. As a matter of 

Agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

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

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

a single site as its top priority to be 

listed on the NPL, without any HRS 

score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each State as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• EPA anticipates that it will be more 

cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions * * *.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

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

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries 

of Sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken * * * to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16129 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, it can submit supporting 

information to the Agency at any time 

after it receives notice it is a potentially 

responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How Are Sites Removed From the 

NPL? 

EPA may delete sites from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been 

implemented and no further response 

action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites 

From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

In November 1995, EPA initiated a 

new policy to delete portions of NPL 

sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and made available for 

productive use. 

I. What Is the Construction Completion 

List (CCL)? 

EPA also has developed an NPL 

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to 

simplify its system of categorizing sites 

and to better communicate the 

successful completion of cleanup 

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

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no 

legal significance. 

Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) 

Any necessary physical construction is 

complete, whether or not final cleanup 

levels or other requirements have been 

achieved; (2) EPA has determined that 

the response action should be limited to 

measures that do not involve 

construction (e.g., institutional 

controls); or (3) the site qualifies for 

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

EPA’s Internet site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund. 

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use Measure? 

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure (formerly called Sitewide 

Ready-for-Reuse) represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

measure reflects the high priority EPA 

places on considering anticipated future 

land use as part of our remedy selection 

process. See Guidance for Implementing 

the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, 

May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This 

measure applies to final and deleted 

sites where construction is complete, all 

cleanup goals have been achieved, and 

all institutional or other controls are in 

place. EPA has been successful on many 

occasions in carrying out remedial 

actions that ensure protectiveness of 

human health and the environment, 

including current and future land users, 

in a manner that allows contaminated 

properties to be restored to 

environmental and economic vitality 

while ensuring protectiveness for 

current and future land users. For 

further information, please go to 

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

programs/recycle/tools/index.html. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I Review the Documents 

Relevant to This Final Rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at EPA Headquarters and in 

the Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through http:// 

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for Docket Identification numbers). 

Although not all Docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

Docket materials through the Docket 

facilities identified below in section II 

D. 

Site name City/state FDMS docket ID No. 

Raleigh Street Dump ........................................................................................ Tampa, FL ................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0575. 

Arkla Terra Property ......................................................................................... Thonotosassa, FL ..... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0576. 

U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ............................................................... East Chicago, IN ....... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0577. 

Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water .................................................................. Frederick, MD ............ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0585. 

Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume ..................................................... Dayton, OH ............... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0580. 

New Carlisle Landfill ......................................................................................... New Carlisle, OH ....... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0581. 

BoRit Asbestos ................................................................................................. Ambler, PA ................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0582. 

Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ........................................................................... McCormick, SC ......... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0583. 

Attebury Grain Storage Facility ........................................................................ Happy, TX ................. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2008–0083. 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

The Headquarters Docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or EPA listing policies that 

affect the site, and a list of documents 

referenced in the Documentation 

Record. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Headquarters Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional Dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters Docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional Dockets. For sites that received 

comments during the comment period, 

the Regional Docket also contains a 

Support Document that includes EPA’s 

responses to comments. 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

16130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 

Please contact the Regional Dockets for 

hours. 

Following is the contact information 

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket 

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566– 

0276. 

The contact information for the 

Regional Dockets is as follows: 

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

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

Records and Information Center, 

Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023; 

617/918–1417. 

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

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

York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4343. 

Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 

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

Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 

3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 

814–5364. 

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

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

Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, 

GA 30303; 404/562–8862. 

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

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

Center, Superfund Division SMR–7J, 

Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 

312/353–5821. 

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

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

Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665– 

7436. 

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

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

Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, 

KS 66101; 913/551–7335. 

Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312– 

6463. 

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

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

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD–9–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972– 

3219. 

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

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

Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 

98101; 206/553–2782. 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of 

NPL Sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under 

the Superfund sites category) or by 

contacting the Superfund Docket (see 

contact information above). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following 

nine sites to the NPL, eight to the 

General Superfund Section and one to 

the Federal Facilities Section: 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

FL ...................... Raleigh Street Dump ................................................................................................................................ Tampa. 

FL ...................... Arkla Terra Property ................................................................................................................................. Thonotosassa. 

IN ...................... U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ....................................................................................................... East Chicago. 

OH .................... Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume .............................................................................................. Dayton. 

OH .................... New Carlisle Landfill ................................................................................................................................. New Carlisle. 

PA ..................... BoRit Asbestos ......................................................................................................................................... Ambler. 

SC ..................... Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields .................................................................................................................... McCormick. 

TX ..................... Attebury Grain Storage Facility ................................................................................................................ Happy. 

TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county 

MD .................... Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water ........................................................................................................... Frederick. 

B. Site Name Change 

The BoRit Asbestos site in Ambler, 

Pennsylvania, was proposed to the NPL 

under a different name. The former 

name was Borit Asbestos Tailings Pile 

(see Proposed Rule at 73 FR 51393, 

September 3, 2008). EPA believes the 

new name, BoRit Asbestos, more 

accurately identifies the site. 

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

EPA reviewed all comments received 

on the sites in this rule and responded 

to all relevant comments. 

Nine sites are being finalized in this 

rule. EPA received adverse comments 

related to the HRS scoring of four sites: 

Attebury Grain Storage Facility (Happy, 

TX); Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water 

(Frederick, MD); Behr Dayton Thermal 

System VOC Plume (Dayton, OH); and 

U. S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. 

(East Chicago, IN). The comments, 

EPA’s responses to the comments, and 

the impacts, if any, on the HRS scores, 

are presented in support documents 

responding to the comments for each of 

the four sites. These support documents 

are being placed in the Headquarters 

and regional dockets concurrent with 

the publication of this rule. 

EPA received one non-HRS comment, 

after the close of the comment period, 

for all sites proposed in March 2008, 

which included the Attebury Grain 

Storage Facility. (All other sites added 

to the NPL in this rule were proposed 

for inclusion in September 2008.) The 

commenter stated that EPA’s process for 

adding sites to the NPL does not meet 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), and urged that 

EPA provide additional information 

beyond that which it already does, in 

order to facilitate a dialogue with 

interested parties on why the site was 

chosen for addition to the NPL. In 

response, EPA’s process for adding sites 

to the NPL complies with the APA. EPA 

agrees generally with the commenter 

that a dialogue with interested parties is 

useful to inform listing decisions, but 

believes there are many opportunities 

for such a dialogue throughout the 

Superfund cleanup process before 

listing a site on the NPL. 

Typically for a prospective site (and 

in accordance with the long-standing 

procedures in the NCP), EPA conducts 

a preliminary assessment (PA), and 

documents its findings in a public 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16131 

report. Based on the PA, EPA may then 

conduct a more comprehensive site 

inspection (SI), the results of which are 

also documented in a public report. An 

SI typically involves gathering sampling 

data (by conducting sampling at or near 

the site) and gathering additional 

assessment data by contacting the state 

and other parties, such as landowners at 

or near the site. These early efforts put 

interested parties on notice of EPA’s 

interest in the site. When EPA proposes 

to list a site, EPA provides its detailed 

rationale in documents publicly 

available in Dockets located at EPA 

Headquarters in Washington DC, in the 

Regional offices, and by electronic 

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

the site is affected by any particular 

CERCLA statutory requirements or EPA 

listing policies, site-specific discussions 

of those statutory requirements or listing 

policies are included as part of the 

docket materials for public review and 

comment. Commenters have the 

opportunity to raise any comments they 

may have on the proposed action, 

including raising any policy concerns 

regarding the propriety of using the 

Superfund process to address the site. 

Indeed, EPA often gets comments of this 

nature on its proposed sites, and 

responds to those comments before it 

makes any final decision to list a site on 

the NPL. 

For the five remaining sites being 

finalized in this rule, EPA received no 

comments on four of those sites: Raleigh 

Street Dump (Tampa, FL); Arkla Terra 

Property (Thonotosassa, FL); New 

Carlisle Landfill (New Carlisle, OH); and 

Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields 

(McCormick, SC). Over 40 comments 

were received for the BoRit Asbestos 

site. All of them were supportive of 

listing and none presented any concerns 

with the HRS scoring. They all urged 

EPA to list the site based on human 

health, environmental and 

redevelopment needs. In response, EPA 

is adding the site to the NPL. Listing 

makes a site eligible for remedial action 

funding under CERCLA, and EPA will 

examine the site to determine what 

response, if any, is appropriate. Actual 

funding may not be necessarily 

undertaken in the precise order of HRS 

scores, however, and upon more 

detailed investigation may not be 

necessary in some cases. EPA will 

determine the need for using Superfund 

monies for remedial activities on a siteby-site basis, taking into account the 

NPL ranking, State priorities, further 

site investigation, other response 

alternatives, and other factors as 

appropriate. 

All comments that were received by 

EPA are contained in the Headquarters 

Docket and are also listed in EPA’s 

electronic public Docket and comment 

system at http://www.regulations.gov. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

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

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to 

Executive Order 12866 Review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Final Rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

16132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before EPA 

promulgates a rule where a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final 

Rule? 

This final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not itself impose any costs. Listing 

does not mean that EPA necessarily will 

undertake remedial action. Nor does 

listing require any action by a private 

party or determine liability for response 

costs. Costs that arise out of site 

responses result from site-specific 

decisions regarding what actions to take, 

not directly from the act of placing a site 

on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. As is 

mentioned above, site listing does not 

impose any costs and would not require 

any action of a small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It 

Applicable to This Final Rule? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law, unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Listing a site on the NPL does not 

impose any costs on a tribe or require 

a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16133 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the Agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this section 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Usage 

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 

13211? 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Further, we have concluded that this 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy impacts because proposing a site 

to the NPL does not require an entity to 

conduct any action that would require 

energy use, let alone that which would 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What Is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply 

to This Final Rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

1. What is Executive Order 12898? 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to 

This Rule? 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. As this rule does not 

impose any enforceable duty upon 

State, tribal or local governments, this 

rule will neither increase nor decrease 

environmental protection. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office? 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, that includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA has submitted 

a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’ 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

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

before a rule can take effect the federal 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a report to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller 

General. This report must contain a 

copy of the rule, a concise general 

statement relating to the rule (including 

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

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

the agency’s actions relevant to 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (affecting small businesses) and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(describing unfunded federal 

requirements imposed on state and local 

governments and the private sector), 

and any other relevant information or 

requirements and any relevant 

Executive Orders. 

EPA has submitted a report under the 

CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. Section 

804(2) defines a major rule as any rule 

that the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or 

is likely to result in: An annual effect on 

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

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. NPL listing is not a 

major rule because, as explained above, 

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary 

costs on any person. It establishes no 

enforceable duties, does not establish 

that EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action, nor does it require any 

action by any party or determine its 

liability for site response costs. Costs 

that arise out of site responses result 

from site-by-site decisions about what 

actions to take, not directly from the act 

of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) 

provides for a delay in the effective date 

of major rules after this report is 

submitted. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

16134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3. What Could Cause a Change in the 

Effective Date of This Rule? 

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

not take effect, or continue in effect, if 

Congress enacts (and the President 

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, 

described under section 802. 

Another statutory provision that may 

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, 

which provides for a legislative veto of 

regulations promulgated under 

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 

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

of Regents of the University of 

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

(D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the 

legislative veto into question, EPA has 

transmitted a copy of this regulation to 

the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, EPA will publish a document 

of clarification in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: April 1, 2009. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

■ 40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to 

part 300 are amended by adding the 

following sites in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

* * * * * * * 

FL ..................... Arkla Terra Property ..................................................................................................................... Thonotosassa. 

* * * * * * * 

FL ..................... Raleigh Street Dump .................................................................................................................... Tampa. 

* * * * * * * 

IN ...................... U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc ........................................................................................... East Chicago. 

* * * * * * * 

OH .................... Behr Dayton Thermal System VOC Plume ................................................................................. Daytona. 

* * * * * * * 

OH .................... New Carlisle Landfill .................................................................................................................... New Carlisle. 

* * * * * * * 

PA ..................... BoRit Asbetos .............................................................................................................................. Ambler. 

* * * * * * * 

SC .................... Barite Hill/Nevada Goldfields ....................................................................................................... McCormick. 

* * * * * * * 

TX ..................... Attebury Grain Storage Facility .................................................................................................... Happy. 

* * * * * * * 

TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

* * * * * * * 

MD .................... Fort Detrick Area B Ground Water .............................................................................................. Frederick. 

* * * * * * * 

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

C = Sites on Construction Completion list. 

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

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 67 / Thursday, April 9, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 16135 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–7825 Filed 4–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 176, 178, and 

180 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2006–25910 (HM– 

218E)] 

RIN 2137–AE23 

Hazardous Materials: Miscellaneous 

Cargo Tank Motor Vehicle and Cylinder 

Issues; Petitions for Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations to 

revise certain requirements applicable 

to the manufacture, maintenance, and 

use of DOT and MC specification cargo 

tank motor vehicles, DOT specification 

cylinders and UN pressure receptacles. 

The revisions are based on petitions for 

rulemaking submitted by the regulated 

community and are intended to enhance 

the safe transportation of hazardous 

materials in commerce, clarify 

regulatory requirements, and reduce 

operating burdens on cargo tank and 

cylinder manufacturers, requalifiers, 

carriers, shippers, and users. The most 

significant amendment adopted in this 

final rule addresses a safety issue 

identified by the National 

Transportation Safety Board concerning 

the transportation of compressed gases 

in cylinders mounted on motor vehicles 

or in frames, commonly referred to as 

tube trailers. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective May 11, 2009. 

Voluntary Compliance Date: 

Voluntary compliance with all these 

amendments, including those with 

delayed mandatory compliance, is 

authorized as of April 9, 2009. 

Incorporation by Reference Date: The 

incorporation by reference of 

publications listed in this final rule has 

been approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register as of May 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hattie L. Mitchell, Office of Hazardous 

Materials Standards, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, East Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001, telephone (202) 366– 

8553. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) requires Federal agencies to give 

interested persons the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule (5 U.S.C. 553(e)). PHMSA’s 

rulemaking procedure regulations, at 49 

CFR 106.95, provide for persons to ask 

PHMSA to add, amend or delete a 

regulation by filing a petition for 

rulemaking containing adequate support 

for the requested action. In this final 

rule, PHMSA (also ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘us’’) is 

amending the HMR based on petitions 

for rulemaking submitted by cargo tank 

and cylinder manufacturers, 

requalifiers, shippers, and carriers. We 

are also incorporating revisions to 

address requests for clarification of the 

regulations. These revisions are 

intended to enhance the safe 

transportation of hazardous materials in 

cargo tank motor vehicles and cylinders, 

clarify regulatory requirements, and 

reduce operating burdens on carriers, 

shippers, and users. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

We published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) under this docket 

on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 18446). The 

comment period for the NPRM closed 

on June 11, 2007. PHMSA received 21 

comments from the following 

individuals, companies, and 

organizations: 

(1) Matheson Tri Gas (Matheson; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–2 and 4); 

(2) Clifford L. Bartley (Bartley; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–3); 

(3) A&S Enterprises (A&S; PHMSA– 

2006–25910–4); 

(4) Taylor-Wharton Huntsville 

(Taylor-Wharton; PHMSA–2006–25910– 

5); 

(5) Catalina Cylinders (Catalina; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–7); 

(6) Norco Welding-Safety Medical 

Gases & Supplies (Norco; PHMSA– 

2006–25910–8); 

(7) Richard O. Harder (Harder; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–9); 

(8) Scott Specialty Gases (Scott 

Specialty; PHMSA–2006–25910–10); 

(9) Chemetall Foote Corp. (Chemetall; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–11); 

(10) National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB; PHMSA–2006–25910– 

13); 

(11) Certified Training Co. (CTC; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–14); 

(12) Luxfer Gas Cylinders (Luxfer; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–15); 

(13) Sherwood Harsco Corp. 

(Sherwood; PHMSA–2006–25910–16); 

(14) Air Products and Chemicals Inc. 

(Air Products; PHMSA–2006–25910– 

17); 

(15) National Propane Gas Assoc. 

(NPGA; PHMSA–2006–25910–18); 

(16) FMC Lithium (FMC Lithium; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–19); 

(17) Barlen & Assoc. Inc. (Barlen; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–20); 

(18) The Linde Group (Linde; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–21); 

(19) Roberts Oxygen Company, Inc. 

(Roberts; PHMSA–2006–25910–22); 

(20) Steigerwalt (Steigerwalt; 

PHMSA–2006–25910–23); and 

(21) Compressed Gas Association 

(CGA; PHMSA–2006–25910–24). 

Commenters are generally supportive of 

the proposals in the NPRM. All of the 

proposals, with corresponding 

comments, are discussed in more detail 

below. 

III. Proposals Not Adopted 

We are not adopting two of the 

amendments proposed in the NPRM 

relating to the incorporation by 

reference of two CGA publications. In 

the NPRM, we proposed the 

incorporation of CGA V–9 titled 

‘‘Standard for Compressed Gas Cylinder 

Valves, 2005 Fifth Edition’’ which was 

requested by CGA (P–1422). This 

amendment contained in proposed 

§§ 173.40(c) and 173.301(a)(11) would 

have required each valve on a cylinder 

to conform to CGA V–9 unless 

otherwise excepted. We received 15 

comments from Air Products, Matheson, 

Taylor-Wharton, Catalina, Norco, 

Harder, Scott Specialty, Chemetall, 

Luxfer, Sherwood, NPGA, FMC 

Lithium, Barlen, Linde, and Roberts. 

With the exception of Luxfer, these 

commenters request that we delay the 

incorporation by reference of CGA V–9 

to allow sufficient time for CGA to 

resolve certain concerns that would 

cause confusion to both industry and 

enforcement officials. Luxfer suggests 

that we adopt CGA V–9 and revise the 

HMR to establish in-process approvals, 

controls, and inspections for the 

manufacture of V–9 valves. Because 

CGA is in the process of revising the 

CGA V–9 publication, we agree with the 

commenters who suggest that the 

publication should not be incorporated 

into the HMR at this time. 

We also proposed the incorporation of 

CGA C–1 titled ‘‘Methods for 

Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas 

Cylinders,’’ that was requested by CGA 

(P–1485). This amendment contained in 

proposed § 180.205(g) would have 

required the requalification of cylinders 

using a pressure test conducted in 

accordance with CGA C–1. Air Products 

supports referencing CGA C–1. Two 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES